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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 05/20/2026..
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of Applicant’s response filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 6-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bucuk, Asim (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20100274859; hereinafter "Bucuk").
As per claim 1, Bucuk teaches:
A method for controlling operation of an article, the method comprising:
Bucuk teaches a system and method for controlling operations of devices (articles). (Bucuk: paragraph [0008], abstract)
receiving, from an article and over a first wireless network, a communication including at least an article identifier, wherein the article includes an antenna for communicating and a sensor for detecting at least one interaction event;
Bucuk teaches that a user device may receive, using a radio connection (a first wireless network), the identifiers of all devices (any of which may comprise the article) within range of the device. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-118, 120, 122]) Bucuk teaches that each device may have the capability of detecting other devices which are determined to be within a proximity of the device (an interaction event). (Bucuk: paragraph [0118])
in response to receiving the communication, authenticating the article on a second wireless network based at least on the article identifier and a first set of credentials provided by a first device;
Bucuk teaches that the user device may send the identifier of a device within its proximity, along with an identifier of the user device (a first set of credentials) to an authentication server over a GPRS or UMTS (each of which may comprise the second or third network) connection in order to determine whether the user device may connect to and control the device within its proximity. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-123])
granting, based on a second set of credentials, authority to enable the first device to control operation of the article;
Bucuk further teaches that the authentication granted may comprise access permission used to control articles. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-133, 129, 130-133, 169, 208])
receiving, from a second device over a third wireless network, an authentication request to control operation of the article, the authentication request includes a third set of credentials;
Bucuk teaches that the user device may send the identifier of a device within its proximity, along with an identifier of the user device (a first set of credentials) to an authentication server over a GPRS or UMTS (each of which may comprise the second or third network) connection in order to determine whether the user device may connect to and control the device within its proximity. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-123]) Bucuk teaches the repetition of the acknowledge, request, authorize, and bond steps for a second device. (Bucuk: paragraph [0123]) In teaching that the above process may be repeated for other devices, and that the network used to perform the authentication may comprise either a GPRS (a second network) or a UMTS (a third network), Bucuk teaches second and third networks. See also paragraphs [0170-172, 208] describing repetition of bonding processes for subsequent devices requesting to access, bond with, and subsequently control an article.
Furthermore, in light of the fact that Bucuk teaches the repetition of the above process for other devices, and in light of the fact that Bucuk teaches the use of a GPRS or UMTS for the authentication communication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the discover, authenticate, bond, and control process for a second device using a different, third, network (either a UMTS if the GPRS was first used, or GPRS if the UMTS was first used). The repetition of the process is taught by the reference, two options for an authentication network are given, and the reference further teaches access rights being given to a second, different, device for controlling an article. The results the above process using the teaching of a second device and the teaching of a third network would have been predictable since each element is taught by the reference itself, each element performs the same function upon repetition, and since the results of repeating this process would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the process described in paragraphs [0117-133] of Bucuk using a second device and a third network which ultimately grants control of the article to the second device.
granting, based on the third set of credentials, authority for the second device to remotely control the operation of the article;
Bucuk teaches that the user device may send the identifier of a device within its proximity, along with an identifier of the user device (a first set of credentials) to an authentication server over a GPRS connection in order to determine whether the user device may connect to and control the device within its proximity. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-133]) In teaching that the above process may be repeated for other device, and that the network used to perform the authentication may comprise either a GPRS (a second network) or a UMTS (a third network), Bucuk teaches second and third networks used to authenticate a second device. Bucuk further teaches that the authentication granted may comprise access permission used to control articles. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-133, 129, 130-133, 169, 208])
Furthermore, in light of the fact that Bucuk teaches the repetition of the above process for other devices, and in light of the fact that Bucuk teaches the use of a GPRS or UMTS for the authentication communication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the discover, authenticate, bond, and control process for a second device using a different, third, network (either a UMTS if the GPRS was first used, or GPRS if the UMTS was first used). The repetition of the process is taught by the reference, two options for an authentication network are given, and the reference further teaches access rights being given to a second, different, device for controlling an article. The results the above process using the teaching of a second device and the teaching of a third network would have been predictable since each element is taught by the reference itself, each element performs the same function upon repetition, and since the results of repeating this process would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the process described in paragraphs [0117-133] of Bucuk using a second device and a third network which ultimately grants control of the article to the second device.
receiving, from either the first device or the second device, a request to remotely control the operation of the article;
Bucuk teaches that the user device may send the identifier of a device within its proximity, along with an identifier of the user device (a first set of credentials) to an authentication server over a GPRS connection in order to determine whether the user device may connect to and control the device within its proximity. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-133]) Bucuk further teaches that the authentication used may comprise access permission used to control articles. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-133, 129, 130-133, 169, 208])
and in response to receiving the request, remotely operating the article.
Bucuk teaches that the user device may send the identifier of a device within its proximity, along with an identifier of the user device (a first set of credentials) to an authentication server over a GPRS connection in order to determine whether the user device may connect to and control the device within its proximity. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-133]) Bucuk further teaches that the authentication used may comprise access permission used to control articles. (Bucuk: paragraph [0117-133, 129, 130-133, 169, 208])
As per claim 2, Bucuk teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the first wireless network is a short range wireless network.
Bucuk teaches that a user device may receive, using a radio connection (a first wireless network), the identifiers of all devices (any of which may comprise the article) within range of the device. (Bucuk: paragraph [0118, 120, 122]) Bucuk further teaches that the first network may comprise a local network or a short range wireless network in the form of Wi-Fi, NFC, Bluetooth, lrDA RFID. (Bucuk: paragraph [0163])
As per claim 3, Bucuk teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the first wireless network is a local network.
Bucuk teaches that a user device may receive, using a radio connection (a first wireless network), the identifiers of all devices (any of which may comprise the article) within range of the device. (Bucuk: paragraph [0118, 120, 122]) Bucuk further teaches that the first network may comprise a local network or a short range wireless network in the form of Wi-Fi, NFC, Bluetooth, lrDA RFID. (Bucuk: paragraph [0163])
As per claim 4, Bucuk teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the second wireless network is a Wi-Fi network.
Bucuk further teaches that the second wireless network may comprise WiFi. (Bucuk: paragraph [0255]) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the internet connection comprising GPRS or UMTS (see paragraph [0089]) with the internet connection comprising WiFi (see paragraph [0255]) since each element is taught by the reference of record, the substitution of WiFi for GPRS or UMTS would not affect the normal functioning of the process, and the results of substitution of WiFi for GPRS or UMTS would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use WiFi as the second wireless network to arrive at the claimed invention.
As per claim 6, Bucuk teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the third wireless network is a Wi-Fi network.
Bucuk further teaches that the second wireless network may comprise WiFi. (Bucuk: paragraph [0255]) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the internet connection comprising GPRS or UMTS (see paragraph [0089]) with the internet connection comprising WiFi (see paragraph [0255]) since each element is taught by the reference of record, the substitution of WiFi for GPRS or UMTS would not affect the normal functioning of the process, and the results of substitution of WiFi for GPRS or UMTS would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use WiFi as the third wireless network to arrive at the claimed invention.
As per claim 7, Bucuk teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the third wireless network is a telecommunications network.
Bucuk teaches a UMTS or GPRS telecommunications network. (Bucuk: paragraph [0122])
As per claim 8, Bucuk teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the at least one interaction event comprises an increase or decrease in voltage.
Bucuk teaches that each device may have the capability of detecting other devices which are determined to be within a proximity of the device (an interaction event). (Bucuk: paragraph [0118]) In teaching a Bluetooth detection, Bucuk teaches that the interaction event may comprise a decrease in voltage. Id.
As per claim 9, Bucuk teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A system comprising:
Bucuk teaches a system and method for controlling operations of devices (articles). (Bucuk: paragraph [0008], abstract)
at least one processor;
Bucuk teaches the implementation of the system and method on a computing device which may comprise a processor which executes code stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Bucuk: paragraph [0070, 88, 292-293])
and at least one memory, storing instructions which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
Bucuk teaches the implementation of the system and method on a computing device which may comprise a processor which executes code stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Bucuk: paragraph [0070, 88, 292-293])
As per claims 10-12 and 14-16, Bucuk teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2-4 and 6-8, and claims 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-4 and 6-8, as outlined above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucuk in view of Saylor, Michael J. (U.S. Patent No. 9,154,303; hereinafter "Saylor").
As per claim 5, Bucuk teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the second wireless network is a local network.
Saylor, however, teaches that a server may communicate with a client device in the field of credentialing through the use of a local area network. (Saylor: col. 4 lines 34-41, col. 16 lines 5-15) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Bucuk, or by Saylor. Using the LAN to communicate with the server, as taught by Saylor does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Bucuk. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Saylor with the teachings of Bucuk, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 13, Bucuk in view of Saylor teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 5, and claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights