DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 1/21/2025.
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
This application is a CON of 18/743,126 filed on 06/14/2024 now PAT 12,204,968.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brownlee et al. (US 2019/0253254).
Re Claims 1 and 8: Brownlee et al. teaches system and method for securing a resource, which includes a hardware memory {herein memory 5910} (see ¶ 137-147+), wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on non-transitory machine-readable storage {herein a process represented by executable machine code stored in a non-transitory memory that may be executed by one or more processors} media that (see ¶ 127+): obtain an encoded data representation (¶ 475+, 711+); process the encoded data representation into an input string 6510 (¶ 150+); identify at least two encoded portions of the input string {herein the combination code generator P(TM(CCG)) 6520 acts upon input from a first input sequence FIS 6610 and a second input sequence (SIS) 6615} (see fig.# 66, ¶ 155+ ); decode each of the at least two encoded portions using corresponding decoders to obtain respective decoded portions (¶ 235+); generate a combined output string {herein a combination code 6630} from the decoded portions (¶ 150+); verify authenticity of the combined output string using a verification indicator from the input string (¶ 309-312+, 823+); and manage decoder retention based on at least one system operating {herein through an optical identification system/OIS} condition (see ¶ 235, 332-350+).
Re Claims 3 and 10: Brownlee et al. teaches system and method, wherein the encoded data representation comprises a quick response (QR) code image (¶ 142+, 234+).
Re Claims 4 and 11: Brownlee et al. teaches system and method, wherein verifying authenticity comprises: computing a hash value of the combined output string; and comparing the computed hash value {herein the combination code generator 6520 computes a hash value and converts the hash value to a string of identifiers within a base number system} to the verification indicator from the input string (¶ 138+, 150-160+, 174+, 212+).
Re Claims 5 and 12: Brownlee et al. teaches system and method, wherein the encoded data processing module further causes the computing device to: identify decoder location indicators within the input string; and retrieve the corresponding decoders using the decoder location indicators (¶ 838-840+).
Re Claims 7 and 14: Brownlee et al. teaches system and method, wherein the encoded data processing module further causes the computing device to render the combined output string on an electronic display (¶ 480+).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownlee et al. (US 2019/0253254) in view of Jensen et al. (US 2021/0133734).
The teachings of Brownlee et al. have been discussed above. Brownlee et al. further teaches IOT-connectivity (¶ 553-555+).
Brownlee et al. fails to specifically teach a network connectivity status, and wherein managing decoder retention comprises clearing at least one decoder from the memory upon detecting a robust network connectivity status.
Jensen et al. teaches system and method related to executing transactions in a hybrid cloud environment, which includes a network connectivity status, and wherein managing decoder retention comprises clearing at least one decoder from the memory upon detecting a robust network connectivity status (¶ 42+).
In view of Jensen et al.’s teachings, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to employ into the teachings of Brownlee et al. a network connectivity status, and wherein managing decoder retention comprises clearing at least one decoder from the memory upon detecting a robust network connectivity status so as to provide efficient data transfer and ensure uninterrupted data transmission.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownlee et al. (US 2019/0253254) in view of Wilson (US 2010/0095129)
The teachings of Brownlee et al. have been discussed above. Brownlee et al. also teaches detects sensitive information based on the organization's policies (708+,765+).
Brownlee et al. fails to specifically teach that managing decoder retention comprises: determining a status of the at least one system operating condition; and selectively clearing at least one decoder from the memory based on the determined status and a predefined retention policy.
Wilson teaches computer program integrity verification, which includes one decoder from the memory based on the determined status and a predefined retention policy (83-85+).
In view of Wilson’s teachings, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to employ into the teachings of Brownlee et al. managing decoder retention comprises: determining a status of the at least one system operating condition; and selectively clearing at least one decoder from the memory based on the determined status and a predefined retention policy so as to determine rules/criteria under which data are retained and/or erased.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2022/0236971) teaches adapting existing source code snippets to new contexts.
Liaghati (US 2019/0109600) teaches data collection device with efficient data compression.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876