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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
Abstract
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
On page 1, line 5, the first occurrence of “ID” should be spelled out.
On page 1, line 7, the first occurrence of “URL” should be spelled out.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2, line 5, the first occurrence of “URL” should be spelled out.
On page 2, line 16, the first occurrence of “ID” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 2, the first occurrence of “URL” should be spelled out.
In Claim 1, line 6, the first occurrence of “ID” should be spelled out.
In Claim 4, line 2, the first occurrence of “URL” should be spelled out.
In Claim 4, line 6, the first occurrence of “ID” should be spelled out.
In Claim 5, line 3, the first occurrence of “URL” should be spelled out.
In Claim 5, line 7, the first occurrence of “ID” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-3 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it/they use(s) the term “configured to” with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Regarding Claim 1, “a tag management device that is identified by a first URL and stores tag identification information and a second URL in association with each other”. There is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
“a one-time ID determination device that issues second unique information to the tag management device”. There is no corresponding structure or algorithm disclosed in the specification.
“wherein the tag management device acquires the tag identification information and first unique information from an electronic tag via a reader, acquires the second unique information from the one-time ID determination device when the parameter determination device determines that the first unique information is acquired for the first time, and accesses the access destination device of the second URL corresponding to the tag identification information by adding the second unique information to the second URL”. There is no corresponding structure or algorithm disclosed in the specification.
Regarding Claim 2, “a read timing management device that stores the tag identification information and time when the reader reads the tag identification information”. There is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
Regarding Claim 3, “an access time management device that stores time when the reader accesses the access destination device and reader identification information of the reader”. There is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." Id. at 622. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm."
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a tag management device that is identified by a first URL and stores tag identification information and a second URL in association with each other; a one-time ID determination device that issues second unique information to the tag management device; wherein the tag management device acquires the tag identification information and first unique information from an electronic tag via a reader, acquires the second unique information from the one-time ID determination device when the parameter determination device determines that the first unique information is acquired for the first time, and accesses the access destination device of the second URL corresponding to the tag identification information by adding the second unique information to the second URL.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a read timing management device that stores the tag identification information and time when the reader reads the tag identification information.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for an access time management device that stores time when the reader accesses the access destination device and reader identification information of the reader.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are allowed.
Claims 1-3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 1-5, the closest prior art of record Kim et al (US 20130254051) in view of Chitlur (US 20090093233) in further view of Cho (US 20170134503) and in even further view of Choi (US 9019073) does not teach an access control method for an access control system including a tag management device that is identified by a first URL and stores tag identification information and a second URL in association with each other, a parameter determination device, an access destination device identified by the second URL, and a one-time ID determination device that issues second unique information to the tag management device, the access control method comprising: allowing the tag management device to acquire the tag identification information and first unique information from an electronic tag via a reader, acquire the second unique information from the one-time ID determination device when the parameter determination device determines that the first unique information is acquired for the first time; and access the access destination device of the second URL corresponding to the tag identification information by adding the second unique information to the second URL; and permitting the tag management device and the reader to access the access destination device when the one-time ID determination device determines that the second unique information transmitted by the access destination device is acquired for the first time, wherein the first unique information is unique information issued for each reading process by the reader, and the second unique information is unique information issued each time the parameter determination device determines that the first unique information is acquired for the first time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al (US 20130254051), Abstract - There are disclosed a receipt issuing apparatus, a user terminal, a receipt issue system, and a method using smart receipts. The receipt issuing apparatus can include an issue unit configured to receive settlement information, configure a smart receipt based on the settlement information, and issue the configured smart receipt and a receipt transmission unit configured to send the issued smart receipt to a user terminal using short range wireless communication, wherein the smart receipt comprises at least one of information on a place of business, the settlement information, information on a transaction article, discount information, and an image of user signing.
Chitlur (US 20090093233), Abstract - Methods and apparatus for locating a wireless communication device and safeguarding its information from unauthorized users are provided. A sensing device provided with the wireless communication device identifies or senses an attempt to access unique information associated with the wireless communication device. In addition, the method includes requesting authentication information to gain access to the unique information. If authentication fails, a wireless service provider is subsequently alerted and provided with identification information of the wireless communication device. The wireless service provider can also be provided with location information of the wireless communication device.
Cho (US 20170134503), Abstract - A method for at a wireless device establishing a communication connection with an external device is disclosed. The wireless device stores unique information of at least one external device connectable with the wireless device in a connection target list, and receives a connection waiting command from a server connected with the wireless device. In response to the received connection waiting command, the wireless device changes a status thereof to a connection waiting status allowing a connection with the external device, and receives a connection request from the external device finding the wireless device which is in the connection waiting status. If unique information of the connection-requesting external device is contained in the connection target list, the wireless device performs a communication connection with the connection-requesting external device, receives a command data regarding a transportation device from the connected external device, and transmits the received command data to the transportation device.
Choi (US 9019073), Abstract - A system for authenticating a user of an in-home display (IHD) and an authentication method are provided. A user of an IHD is authenticated by using a mobile terminal including an authentication application. The authentication system receive authentication request data from the mobile terminal and allows the IHD to display a message in relation to user confirmation, and when certain requirements are met, the authentication system performs user authentication to permit a user to use the IHD.
Hwang (US 20190318071), Abstract - A mobile device is disclosed. The present mobile device comprises: a display for displaying an authentication information input screen for receiving user authentication information when the mobile device is connected to a server providing a service requiring input of the user authentication information; a first communication unit for transmitting, to the server, the user authentication information inputted through the authentication information input screen and first simple authentication information generated in the mobile device; a second communication unit for communicating with an electronic device to receive unique information of the electronic device; and a processor for generating second simple authentication information by using unique information of the mobile device and the unique information of the electronic device, transmitting the second simple authentication information to the server which matches the first simple authentication information to the user authentication information which are matched with each other, and controlling the display to display an authentication result screen provided from the server according to whether or not the first and the second simple authentication information are matched.
Kaiser et al (US 10104525), Abstract - Disclosed are NFC-enabled communication systems for provisioning wireless vehicle communication, control logic for operating such systems, and motor vehicles equipped with an onboard NFC-enabled device for short-range communication with one or more off-board NFC-enabled devices. A disclosed method for provisioning data exchange between an onboard electronic device of a motor vehicle and an off-board electronic device includes detecting if NFC-enabled components of the onboard and off-board electronic devices are within a predetermined proximity of each other and, if the components are within proximity, establishing a wireless communications session between the devices. After establishing the wireless communications session, determining whether or not to grant the off-board electronic device access to an NFC tag in the NFC-enabled component of the onboard electronic device. If access to the NFC tag is granted, a message data packet is transmitted from the off-board electronic device to the onboard electronic device or a personal computing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights