DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to a Continuation patent application filed by Applicant on 3/10/2025.
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 PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant on 8/6/2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Double Patenting
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 1–21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipatory-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of US 10,917,788 B2, issued Feb. 9, 2021. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The present application, as claimed, satisfies the requirements for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1–5, 12–16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 2016/0112871 A1, published Apr. 21, 2016, cited in IDS filed 8/6/2025) in view of Robinson (US 2014/0156833 A1, published Jun. 5, 2014, cited in IDS filed 8/6/2025).
Regarding claim 1, White discloses: a method of detecting departure of a previously authenticated user from proximity to a secure resource, the method comprising the steps of: establishing a wireless communication link between the secure resource and a device proximate thereto (direct wireless communication between computer 110 and mobile device 102 using a short-range communications link. White Figure 1, element 140 and ¶¶ 29–30.); verifying, by the secure resource, an association between the authenticated user and the device (authentication of the user is performed using scanned signature cards, ID cards 716, and passwords 717, by access control 710. White ¶ 81.); monitoring over time, by the secure resource, a signal strength of the wireless communication link and periodically storing, in a computer memory, values indicative of the monitored signal strength (signal properties of the transmission, such as signal strength, are checked to determine if the device is still in the enabled location and the data is stored in memory. White ¶¶ 88–89.); periodically analyzing, by the secure resource, the stored values for patterns indicative of a walkaway event and, when the monitored data exceeds a threshold specified by a security policy registering a walkaway even and terminating the authenticated user’s access to the secure resource (monitoring and checking the characteristics of the signal strength of the transmitted proximity signal to determine a failure to meet a criteria threshold determining that the device is no longer within the room (out-of-room state) and terminates access to data based upon policies. White ¶¶ 68–69, 86, and 89.).
White does not disclose: assigning probabilities to indicate an event based on an exceeded threshold.
However, Robinson does disclose: assigning probabilities to indicate an event based on an exceeded threshold (applying probability based upon the state of the data to determine what is the likely state. Robinson ¶ 61.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restricting access between devices based upon proximity enabled by monitoring signal strength of the communications link of White with triggering events based upon assigned probability values exceeding a threshold based upon the teachings of Robinson. The motivation being to add flexibility, not rigid logic, to the means of data analytics. Robinson ¶ 61.
Regarding claim 2, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the secure resource verifies the association by communication with a location server having access to a user database (database maintained at a central server located remote to establishment for storing the content, data, or communications. White ¶ 91. Authentication of the user is performed using scanned signature cards, ID cards 716, and passwords 717, by access control 710. White ¶ 81.).
Regarding claim 3, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the authenticated user's access to the secure resource is terminated by ending a session hosted by the secure resource (session is terminated. White ¶ 89.).
Regarding claim 4, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the authenticated user's access to the secure resource is terminated by launching a privacy screen removable only by a new authentication (when access is terminated the device wipes all information accessed during the session. White ¶ 89.).
Regarding claim 5, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication link is a short-range wireless protocol (White ¶ 27.).
Regarding claim 12, White discloses: a system comprising a plurality of secure resources, each of the secure resources comprising: a processor; a computer memory including stored instructions executable by the processor for implementing (i) an authentication module and (ii) an event-monitoring module (White ¶¶ 82, 89, and 98.); a wireless interface for establishing wireless communication links with user devices proximate to the secure resource (direct wireless communication between computer 110 and mobile device 102 using a short-range communications link. White Figure 1, element 140 and ¶¶ 29–30.); RSSI circuitry configured to monitor a signal strength of a wireless communication link between the wireless interface and a user device, and periodically storing, in the computer memory, values indicative of the monitored signal strength (signal properties of the transmission, such as signal strength, are checked to determine if the device is still in the enabled location and the data is stored in memory. White ¶¶ 88–89.), wherein: the authentication module is configured to authenticate a user and verify an association between the authenticated user and the linked user device (authentication of the user is performed using scanned signature cards, ID cards 716, and passwords 717, by access control 710. White ¶ 81.); and the event-monitoring module is configured to (i) periodically analyze the stored values for patterns indicative of a walkaway event and, when the monitored data exceeds a threshold specified by a security policy registering a walkaway event and terminating the authenticated user's access to the secure resource (monitoring and checking the characteristics of the signal strength of the transmitted proximity signal to determine a failure to meet a criteria threshold determining that the device is no longer within the room (out-of-room state) and terminates access to data based upon policies. White ¶¶ 68–69, 86, and 89.).
White does not disclose: assigning probabilities to indicate an event based on an exceeded threshold.
However, Robinson does disclose: assigning probabilities to indicate an event based
on an exceeded threshold (applying probability based upon the state of the data to determine what is the likely state. Robinson ¶ 61.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restricting access between devices based upon proximity enabled by monitoring signal strength of the communications link of White with triggering events based upon assigned probability values exceeding a threshold based upon the teachings of Robinson. The motivation being to add flexibility, not rigid logic, to the means of data analytics. Robinson ¶ 61.
Regarding claim 13, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 12, further comprising a user database storing associations between users and the user devices (database maintained at a central server located remote to establishment for storing the content, data, or communications. White ¶ 91. Authentication of the user is performed using scanned signature cards, ID cards 716, and passwords 717, by access control 710. White ¶ 81.).
Regarding claim 14, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 12, wherein the event-monitoring module is configured to terminate the authenticated user's access to the secure resource by ending a session hosted by the secure resource (session is terminated. White ¶ 89.).
Regarding claim 15, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 12, wherein the event-monitoring module is configured to terminate the authenticated user's access to the secure resource by launching a privacy screen removable only by a new authentication by the authentication module (when access is terminated the device wipes all information accessed during the session. White ¶ 89.).
Regarding claim 16, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 12, wherein the wireless communication link is a short-range wireless protocol (White ¶ 27.).
Claims 6, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Robinson in view of Chen (US 2015/0245165 A1, published Aug. 27, 2015, cited in IDS filed 8/6/2025).
Regarding claim 6, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 5, wherein the short-range wireless protocol is Bluetooth (White ¶ 27.).
White in view of Robinson does not disclose: Bluetooth Low Energy.
However, Chen does disclose: Bluetooth Low Energy (Chen ¶¶ 4–6.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restricting access between devices based upon proximity enabled by monitoring signal strength of the communications link of White with using Bluetooth Low Energy based upon the teachings of Chen. The motivation being the Bluetooth Low Energy is part of the Bluetooth specification and provides significant benefits with regards to power consumption compared with previous versions. Chen ¶ 3.
Regarding claim 17, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 16, wherein the short-range wireless protocol is Bluetooth (White ¶ 27.).
White in view of Robinson does not disclose: Bluetooth Low Energy.
However, Chen does disclose: Bluetooth Low Energy (Chen ¶¶ 4–6.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restricting access between devices based upon proximity enabled by monitoring signal strength of the communications link of White with using Bluetooth Low Energy based upon the teachings of Chen. The motivation being the Bluetooth Low Energy is part of the Bluetooth specification and provides significant benefits with regards to power consumption compared with previous versions. Chen ¶ 3.
Claims 10, 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Robinson in view of Lee (US 2014/0156833 A1, published Jun. 5, 2014, cited in IDS filed 8/6/2025).
Regarding claim 10, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 1. White in view of Robinson does not disclose: wherein the analyzing step is performed with a recurrent neural network.
However, Lee does disclose: wherein the analyzing step is performed with a recurrent neural network (employing various AI tools for analytical calculations such as recurrent neural network-based analysis for real-time prediction and data mining. Lee ¶ 66.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restricting access between devices based upon proximity enabled by monitoring signal strength of the communications link of White with analyzing performed with a recurrent neural network based upon the teachings of Lee. The motivation being to improve analytics when determining the state of the system.
Regarding claim 21, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 12. White in view of Robinson does not disclose: wherein the analyzing step is performed with a recurrent neural network.
However, Lee does disclose: wherein the analyzing step is performed with a recurrent neural network (employing various AI tools for analytical calculations such as recurrent neural network-based analysis for real-time prediction and data mining. Lee ¶ 66.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restricting access between devices based upon proximity enabled by monitoring signal strength of the communications link of White with analyzing performed with a recurrent neural network based upon the teachings of Lee. The motivation being to improve analytics when determining the state of the system.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Robinson in view of Chawla (US 2011/0159884 A1, published Jun. 30, 2011, cited in IDS filed 8/6/2025).
Regarding claim 11, White in view of Robinson discloses the limitations of claim 1. White in view of Robinson does not disclose: further comprising, by the secure resource following the user's authentication, subscribing to location events of the user with a location server configured to broadcast location events to subscribers thereto.
However, Chawla does disclose: further comprising, by the secure resource following the user's authentication, subscribing to location events of the user with a location server configured to broadcast location events to subscribers thereto (subscribing to a push-client service with location updates in the embedded mobile application. Chawla Figure 5 and ¶¶ 38–39.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restricting access between devices based upon proximity enabled by monitoring signal strength of the communications link of White with subscribing after user authentication to local events with a location server to broadcast events to subscribers based upon the teachings of Chawla. The motivation being to enable enhanced communication with location-relevant data to subscribing clients. Chawla ¶ 39.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7–9 and 18–20 are subject to the above double patenting rejection. However, were Applicant to overcome this rejection, claims 7–9 and 18–20 would be 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE M LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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 (Jay) 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights