CTNF 19/031,320 CTNF 87782 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continuation This application is a continuation application of US 17/824,706 (filed on May 25, 2022 – now US Patent No. 12,373,537), which is a continuation application of US 16/560,563 (filed on Sep. 4, 2019 – now US Patent No. 11,372,959), which is a continuation application of US 15/272,892 (filed on Sep. 22, 2016 – now US Patent No. 10,440,574). The prosecution history and references cited in the above applications have been fully considered. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over dependent claims 3, 17, and 23 of US Patent No. 12,373,537 and dependent claim 17 of US Patent No. 11,372,959 . While the instant claims may be directed to a different scope (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a method, a computer system) from the claims in the conflicting patent, the limitations presented in the body of each instant claims are not patentably distinct. For example, dependent claim 17, which fully incorporates parent claim 16, of conflicting patent 12,373,537 is directed to a “ computer system ” reciting non-distinct limitations corresponding to limitations recited in each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 of the instant application. See the following comparison table of exemplary claims: Instant Application (19/031,320) Conflicting Patent (12,373,537) 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a first device, cause a hardware processor of the first device to carry out operations comprising: 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a first device, cause a hardware processor of the first device to carry out operations comprising: transmitting, by the first device, at least one wireless signal to a wearable device; determining one or more range measurements between the first device and a second device based at least in part on transit times of a plurality of wireless signals transmitted between the first device and the second device; determining, by the first device, transit times of at least one received wireless signal and the at least one transmitted wireless signal; determining, by the first device, one or more range measurements between the first device and the wearable device based at least in part on the transit times; determining an unlock decision based on a comparison between the one or more range measurements and a dynamic range threshold, wherein a value of the dynamic range threshold is based on a type of the second device, and wherein the dynamic range threshold represents a distance; determining, by the first device, an unlock decision based on a comparison between the one or more range measurements and a dynamic range threshold, ( from dependent claim 3: wherein the unlock decision is based at least in part on the dynamic range threshold determined by a type of device for the first device. ) wherein a value of the dynamic threshold is based on one or more characteristics of an environment that the first device is located that effects wireless signal transmission, and wherein the dynamic range threshold represents a distance; and causing the first device to unlock if the unlock decision is positive. and causing, by at least the first device, the first device to unlock if the unlock decision is positive. Instant Application (19/031,320) Conflicting Patent (11,372,959) 9. A computing device comprising: a computer-readable storage device storing computer-executable instructions; and a hardware processor configured to, in response to executing the computer-executable instructions, carry out operations comprising: 16. A computer system comprising: a computer readable storage device storing computer executable instructions; and a hardware processor configured to, in response to executing the computer executable instructions, carry out operations comprising: receiving at least one wireless signal from a device, transmitting at least one wireless signal to the device, determining transit times of the at least one received wireless signal and the at least one transmitted wireless signal, determining one or more range measurements between the computing device and a second device based at least in part on transit times of a plurality of wireless signals communicated between the computing device and the second device; determining one or more range measurements between the computer system and the device based at least in part on the transit times, determining an unlock decision based on a comparison between the one or more range measurements and a dynamic range threshold, wherein a value of the dynamic threshold is based on a type of the second device, and wherein the dynamic range threshold represents a distance; determining an unlock decision based on a comparison between the one or more range measurements and a dynamic range threshold, ( from dependent claim 17: wherein a value of the dynamic range threshold is based at least in part on a type of the computer system and a type of the device. ) wherein a value of the dynamic range threshold is based on one or more characteristics of wireless communication employed between the computer system and the device, wherein the dynamic range threshold represents a distance; and causing the computing device to unlock if the unlock decision is positive and causing the computer system to unlock if the unlock decision is positive. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For step 1 , a claim is determined whether it falls within one of the four statutory categories. Claims 16-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, the claims fall within at least one of the statutory categories of invention and passes step 1. For step 2A (Prong One) , a claim is determined whether it recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claim 16 recite limitations for “ determining…transit times ” and “ determining…one or more range measurements ”. However, nothing in these limitations preclude the possibility of mental activities to achieve their desired results. For example, “ determining ” transmit times can simply be reading and mentally recording measured times off a computer display or a printout. There is nothing in said limitation that defines the determining as actively measuring transit times utilizing specialized timing circuits, or the like. In another example, “ determining ” measurements can simply be performing mathematical calculations in the mind based off the transit times. Since both steps of determining are recited at a high level of generality, these steps can be interpreted as mental processes. Thus, the independent claims present at least one limitation that falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea. For step 2A (Prong Two) , a claim is determined whether it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements are: Generic computer components for performing the limitations, such as “ a computing device ” and “ a second device ”. Steps for “ transmitting ” and “ receiving ” data corresponding to the “ determining ” steps. However, these elements fail to add something more meaningful to the judicial exception as generic computer components (“ a computing device ”, “ a second device ”) are used to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional elements for merely receiving and transmitting signals are activities that the courts found to be insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the type of content being received and transmitted do not provide meaningful features to the limitations if they are recited at a high level of generality. For example, transmitting “ one or range measurements ” with an intended use (“ usable…to determine an unlock decision ”) does not impart meaningful features into the additional elements and the claim as a whole. Furthermore, the limitations, as a whole, fail to exhibit improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. In MPEP 2106.04(d), the considerations of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application include, but is not limited to, “[a] n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field ” and “[a] pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception .” The claim transmits intended use data after receiving wireless signals to determine transmit times and measurements at a high level of generality. Transmitting data for a proposed use of determining , which may be further mental processes, an unlock decision does not actively improve the functionality of a computer, nor is it an improvement to other technology or technical field. Thus, the independent claim, as a whole, fail to present enough elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea. For step 2B , a claim is determined whether any elements, or combination of elements, are enough to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Since these elements are recited at a high level of generality, such that they can be represented as ordinary computer systems. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Having a hardware and software/logic agents to perform such elements does not instantly preclude it from mental activities if the act itself is presented in a generic/abstract manner – it would be mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d): “ TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.") .” Hence, the independent claim is not patent eligible. Furthermore, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Dependent Claims 17-20: The dependent claims further recite additional limitations for “ transmitting ”, “ receiving ” and “ determining ”. However, these limitations do not provide more than an insignificant relationship to the exception for the same reasons discussed earlier. They are also directed to mental activities and/or extra- and post-solution activities as discussed in the independent claims. Thus, none of the elements in those limitations would preclude them from being performed mentally, nor do they present additional meaningful elements that are more than an abstract idea when taken alone, or in combination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 recites filtering the plurality of wireless signals using “ sequential filters ”. However, neither the provisional (62/348,995) nor the currently filed specifications (19/031,320) disclose any concepts and/or functionalities relating to “ sequential filters ”. At best, [0022] of the originally filed specifications merely states “ the at least one wireless signal received by the first device is filtered by sequential filters ”. The specifications fail to describe what “ sequential filters ” are, or any other disclosure regarding applying particular filters in a sequence. For examination purposes, “ sequential filters ” will be interpreted as applying a plurality of filters in sequence. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0221798 to Sengupta et al. (hereinafter, “Sengupta”) in view of US 2014/0337920 to Giobbi (hereinafter, “Giobbi”) . As per claim 1: Sengupta discloses: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a first device, cause a hardware processor of the first device to carry out operations comprising (a controller 42 of a wireless device 40 [Sengupta, ¶0015; Fig. 3]) : determining one or more range measurements between the first device and a second device based at least in part on the transit times of a plurality of wireless signals transmitted between the first device and the second device (any of a variety of different techniques can be used to determine if a wireless body appliance is within a predetermined distance (of the wireless device); one example is a “a round trip signal propagation time between the units may be measured to determine the distance” [Sengupta, ¶0016] – the round trip signal propagation time being the “ one or more range measurements ”, and conventionally involves transmitting and receiving wireless signals 1 , which is required to compute a round-trip time) ; determining an unlock decision based on a comparison between the one or more range measurements and a dynamic range threshold, wherein a value of the dynamic range threshold is based on a type of the second device , and wherein the dynamic range threshold represents a distance; and causing, by at least the first device, the first device to unlock if the unlock decision is positive (unlocking the wireless device when the distance between the wireless device and the wireless body appliance is within a predetermined distance [Sengupta, ¶0016-0017]). Sengupta does not explicitly disclose, but Giobbi discloses: a dynamic range threshold (a proximity threshold may be variable (“ dynamic ”), wherein the threshold is used for determining a proximity of a secure element to a host device [Giobbi, ¶0061]) and a value of the dynamic range threshold is based on a type of the second device (the proximity threshold varies on one or more factors, such as the type of host device [Giobbi, ¶0061]) Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined distance in Sengupta to be dynamic or variable, such as described in Giobbi. An advantage of a variable distance threshold would have provided improved security by enabling pre-defined conditions in order to unlock devices [Giobbi, ¶0061]. As per claim 3: Sengupta in view of Giobbi disclose all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating Giobbi in claim 1 is also applicable herein. Therefore, Giobbi discloses: wherein determining the unlock decision is based at least in part on the dynamic range threshold determined by a type of the first device (the proximity threshold varies based on the type of host device 120 [Giobbi, ¶0061]). As per claim 5: Sengupta in view of Giobbi disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Sengupta discloses: wherein determining the one or more range measurements comprises determining the one or more range measurements using a wireless controller of the first device (“…the controller 42 may first determine whether the wireless body appliance (and, therefore, the user) is within a predetermined distance of the wireless device 40 before access is granted.” [Sengupta, ¶0015]). As per claim 6: Sengupta in view of Giobbi disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Sengupta discloses: wherein determining the unlock decision is based at least in part on a count of wireless signals received by the first device, a degree of conformity of the one or more range measurements to a model of range data, and one or more characteristics of an environment in which the first device and the second device are located (the type of device and environment, such as in the public or private bedroom [Giobbi, ¶0061]). As per claim 9: Claim 9 is different in overall scope from claim 1 but recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 1. Specifically, claim 9 is directed to a computing device performing the same operations corresponding to the instructions of claim 1. Therefore, the response to claim 1 is also applicable to claim 9. As per claim 10: Claim 10 incorporates all limitations of claim 9. Claim 10 is directed to a computing device corresponding to the instructions of claim 3. Therefore, the responses to claims 3 and 9 are applicable to claim 10. As per claim 12: Sengupta in view of Giobbi disclose all limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, Sengupta discloses: wherein the value of the dynamic range threshold is further based at least in part on one or more characteristics of wireless communication employed between the first device and the second device (the type of device and environment, such as in the public or private bedroom [Giobbi, ¶0061]). As per claim 15: Claim 15 incorporates all limitations of claim 9. Claim 15 is directed to a computing device corresponding to the instructions of claim 5. Therefore, the responses to claims 5 and 9 are applicable to claim 15. As per claim 16: Claim 16 is different in overall scope from claim 1 but recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 1. Specifically, claim 16 is directed to a method with the same steps corresponding to the instructions of claim 1. Therefore, the response to claim 1 is also applicable to claim 16. As per claim 18: Sengupta in view of Giobbi disclose all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Sengupta discloses: wherein the type of the computing device comprises a wearable computing device (wireless device 12 may include any device or structure that is capable of communicating wirelessly with other wireless devices or systems including, for example, a cellular telephone or other handheld wireless communicator, a laptop, palmtop, desktop, or tablet computer having wireless networking capability, a personal digital assistant (PDA) having wireless networking capability, a pager, and/or others, wherein a wearable telephone is suggested [Sengupta, ¶0008]). As per claim 19: Claim 19 incorporates all limitations of claim 16. Claim 19 is directed to a method corresponding to the instructions of claim 5. Therefore, the responses to claims 5 and 16 are applicable to claim 19 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta in view of Giobbi and in further view of Youssef, M. A. et al. (hereinafter, “Youssef”), WLAN Location Determination via Clustering and Probability Distribution, 2003 . As per claim 2: Sengupta in view of Giobbi disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Sengupta discloses : wherein the one or more range measurements comprises multiple received range measurements (a combination of techniques and measured data may be used to determine a distance between units. For example, round trip time and power levels are some of the possible combinations [Sengupta, ¶16].) , and wherein the unlock decision is based at least in part on clustering of the multiple received range measurements . Sengupta and Giobbi do not explicitly disclose, but Youssef discloses: wherein the unlock decision is based at least in part on clustering of the multiple received range measurements (“The Joint Clustering technique uses the joint probability distributions of the signal strength of different access points to find the most probable user location given the observed signal strength values”; therefore, the user location can be determined (e.g., distance) [Youssef, pg. 1, “Introduction”; pg. 3, “The Joint Clustering Technique”]) Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement multiple techniques for determining the distance between two wireless devices, such as round-trip time and power levels. Using multiple distance measuring techniques would have enhanced the accuracy of determining the physical distance. Furthermore, the JC technique in Youssef addresses noisy wireless channels and reduces computational costs of searching a radio map (see Abstract). As per claim 14: Claim 14 incorporates all limitations of claim 9. Claim 14 is directed to a computer device corresponding to the instructions of claim 2. Therefore, the response to claim 2 is also applicable to claim 14 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta in view of Giobbi and in further view of US 2016/0036965 to Kim (hereinafter, “Kim”) . As per claim 4: Sengupta in view of Giobbi disclose all limitations of claim 1. Sengupta and Giobbi do not explicitly disclose, but Kim discloses: storing additional instructions that, when executed by the first device, cause the hardware processor of the first device to carry out further operations comprising: receiving, by the first device, at least one credential from the second device; and authenticating, by the first device, the at least one credential from the second device by at least (i) verifying the at least one credential corresponds to a user account of the first device or (ii) verifying that the second device is unlocked (a mobile terminal 100 (akin to the wireless device in Sengupta) determines whether a recognized wearable device 200 (akin to the wireless body appliance in Sengupta) is connected to the mobile terminal by comparing user authentication information from the wearable device to registered information [Kim, ¶0090]; the user authentication information includes a user ID, a user password, and a user account [Kim, ¶0086]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biometric method of authenticating the user of the wireless body appliance device in [Sengupta, ¶0015] to use a conventional username and password method as disclosed in Kim. Since the wireless device in Sengupta requires authentication of the wireless body appliance, any type of authentication method would have been applicable. A conventional username and password method would have been useful for devices without biometric capabilities. As per claim 13: Claim 13 incorporates all limitations of claim 9. Claim 13 is directed to a computing device corresponding to the instructions of claim 4. Therefore, the responses to claims 4 and 9 are applicable to claim 13. As per claim 17: Claim 17 incorporates all limitations of claim 16. Claim 13 is directed to a method corresponding to the instructions of claim 4. Therefore, the responses to claims 4 and 16 are applicable to claim 17 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7, 8, 11, and 20 are currently not rejected by any of the prior arts of record. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 8 and 11 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. The concept of measuring distances between wireless devices was well-established in the art. Many various techniques have been previously described to enhance the accuracy of measurements, such as US 2010/0135178 (Aggarwal: a round-trip time (RTT) ranging model improves the accuracy of a determined position to estimate a distance, including multiple measurements and mathematically combining with prior measurements to mitigate noise; see ¶0063-0064, 0069); Youssef as applied in the above 103 rejection; and Günther, A., & Hoene, C. (2005, May). Measuring round trip times to determine the distance between WLAN nodes. In International conference on research in networking (pp. 768-779) (Günther: filtering out only successful ping sequences to enable determining a distance between two wireless nodes and dropping erroneous transmission; see pp. 768, 775). However, none of the cited prior arts disclose each and every limitations presented in claims 7 and 8. Claims 11 and 20 are directed to the characteristics of the dynamic range threshold. The most relevant prior art to applying a dynamic (variable) distance threshold is Giobbi in the current 103 rejection. In ¶0061 of Giobbi, the dynamic distance threshold can include the type of the host device. Giobbi does not include both types of the host and connecting devices (the “ second device ”), nor “ a count of wireless signals received ”, as factors in determining the dynamic distance threshold. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0165442: A user can increase or decrease a distance threshold for geo-position authentication using the (+) or (-) regions on a touch screen configuration. See ¶0034; Fig. 6. US 2016/0080154: The distance between a wearable device and an electronic device is periodically estimated to determine whether to unlock the electronic device. See ¶0023. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET. 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, JUNG KIM can be reached on 571-272-3804. 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. /ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 2 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 3 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 4 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 5 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 6 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 7 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 8 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 9 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 10 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 11 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 12 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 13 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 14 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 15 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 16 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 17 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 18 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 19 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 20 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 21 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 22 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 23 Art Unit: 2494 Application/Control Number: 19/031,320 Page 24 Art Unit: 2494 1 US 2010/0128617, [0071]: “Because a propagation speed at which a wireless signal is transmitted is known, a distance may be estimated based on a measured amount of round-trip time elapsed for wireless signals to be transmitted/received between a wireless device and a wireless station, such as an access point or femtocell.”
Prosecution Insights