Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office Action is in reply to communication filed on 08/19/2025.
Response to Amendment
In this reply, claims 22, 26, 28, and 33 have been canceled, without prejudice or disclaimer. Claims 23-25, 27, and 29-31 depend from amended independent claim 21. Claims 34-40 depend from amended independent claim 32. New Claim New claim 41 has been added. Claim 41 depends from amended independent claim 21. Claims 21, 23-25, 27, 29-32, and 34-41 are pending and represent “A MOBILE INTERACTIVE KIOSK METHOD”.
The amendment filed 08/19/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Either the original abstract or the original specification does not specifically disclose an AI-driven concierge application with quantum protocols. In addition, Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter and to properly arrange the language of the abstract in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21, 23-25, 27, 29-32, and 34-41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is presented, relying partially on reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. New ground of rejection is presented below.
Regarding the Non-Statutory Double Patenting, claims 21-40 rejected in the Office Action mailed 05/20/2025 under the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,273,411, Applicant promised to submit a Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the double patenting rejection, which has not been received by the Office. The Non-Statutory Double Patenting is reiterated below.
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.
Claims 23, 31, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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 applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23, line 1, teaches “wherein the communication link…”. There is no antecedent basis for “the communication” in the claims, if in the independent claim 21, an information exchange, an information cloud or a bubble was used to generate the exchange instead of a communication link. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 31, removes the language “etc.”, but leaves a comma and a semi-column consecutively throughout the claim. Additionally, the language and/or is confusing and does not facilitate a clear interpretation of the claim.
Claim 31 uses the term “like” in line 7. This terminology is vague and indeterminate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 lines 1-3 contains the language: “…wherein computing operations in the bubble or communication channel include at least one of: transformation of serial or two- dimensional transactions, the transformation comprising at least one of…”. This language is confusing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 contains the language “the intersection zone(s) or pathway(s)”. thai ;anguage is vague and indefinite. the intersection zone(s) or pathway(s)
The correction above is exemplary. Applicant is advised to review the entire application for error and correct the same.
Cancelled Claims
Claims 1-20. 22. 26. 28 and 33 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40 and 41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oliver et al, US 20120110680 A1 in view of WALKER et al., US 20120077433 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Oliver teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oliver discloses a method comprising: generating an exchange, by at least one of: a communication link, an information exchange, an information cloud, or a bubble, wherein the … includes at least one of: an intersection, an intersection zone, a pathway of connectivity, or a connectivity link, wherein information signals can be at least one of: exchanged, computed, or stored (figs 1, 10, 12, 13, and 15; see also par. 0032, 0083, 0087, 0094, and 0099). Applicant argued in the reply dated 08/19/2025 that “… the exchange occurs in “a wireless space amidst on device or between two or more devices…”, not disclosed by Oliver. However, this feature is well-known in the art, as evidenced by WALKER (WALKER par. 0018).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the setting allowing a wireless space amidst on device or between devices of WALKER within the system of Oliver because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements performs the same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Allowing the first electronic device to determine the appropriate wireless communication format for the designated data and provide enhanced data transfer and convenience, as stated by WALKER in par. 0009. By this rationale, claim 21 is rejected.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the communication link includes an intra-cloud exchange configured to combine at least one of power, computing intelligence, or application access, the application access being provided by at least one of a physical computer, a virtual computer, a virtual processor, or a quantum computing network (Oliver, par. 0032; see that the extensive exchange of data between… distributed information sources (information cloud represent intra-cloud exchange data).
24. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 21, wherein the exchange of information includes at least one of a browser, search engine, software application, platform, ledger, program, or application store, the exchange enabling sourcing, searching, streaming, broadcasting, storing, or exchanging information, including content provided via at least one of: social media, education- entertainment, or financial services platforms (Oliver, 0046).
25. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 21, wherein at least a portion of the information exchange is configured to be transferred, copied, duplicated, stored, erased, modified, or merged to at least one of another information exchange, another communication link, or another device (WALKER, par. 0031).
27. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 21, wherein the communication link includes at least one of: entanglement-based systems, magnetic flux systems, quantum internet, or quantum intranet (Oliver, par. 0114).
31. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 21, wherein the information exchange includes at least one of: analog, digital or hybrid electromagnetics or radio frequencies; magnetic clouds; physical, digital or virtual advertising or marketing information; geo-fencing, geo-tagging, geo- pinning, parking services, electric charging services, point of sale transactions, automated teller financial transactions; bitcoin, crypto, NFT, blockchain or distributed ledger and/or other financial transactions; any form of creative digital rights including: music, books, videos, movies, photography, and/or copyrights, financial transactions including: Bonds, Stocks, ISIN, CUSIP,IBAN, wire transfers / SWIFT, and/or ACH, Fitness or health data like heart rate, oxygen levels, blood pressure, brain waves, PSA levels, cancers, tumors or blood anomalies; any form of bio-security, encryptions, telemetries, telematics; artificial intelligence, sensors, situational awareness systems; telecommunications, internet or intranet, internet of things, radio, ham radio, television, and interactive or dynamic communications, 3G, LTE, 4G, 5G, or comprising other software defined radio systems, routers, phones, computers, super-computers, quantum-computers, tablets, watches and/or any other devices; energy harvesting, rectennas systems, or any other devices, exchanges, and/or communications links, where information exchange of signals may take place.
32. (Currently Amended) A communication device configured to produce at least one of: a communication link, an information exchange, an information cloud, or a bubble, enabling the exchange of information in a wireless space amidst one device or between two or more devices. (see O;iver,
34. (Currently Amended) The communication device of claim 32, wherein the information exchange is configured to transform an Internet architecture by enabling at least one of: bubble computing, transformational computing, additive computing, or metamorphic computing; transaction settlement or financial platform transformation; energy harvesting; information regulation, personal security enhancement, privacy protection, device regulation; or governance of information cloud organization and exchange permissions.
35. (Currently Amended) The communication device of claim 32, further comprising a single electrode or wherein the information exchange is at least one of: analog, digital, or a hybrid thereof, and comprises at least one of: acoustic signals, ultrasonic signals, ultraviolet signals, infrared signals, laser signals, radio spectrum signals, electrostatic fields, polarizing schemes, digital signal processing means, sampling systems, phased array systems, MiMo schemas, multiplexing, spread spectrum techniques, time division multiple access, or code division multiple access (WALKER, par. Par. 0011 and 0018).
37. (Currently Amended) The communication device of claim 32, wherein computing operations in the bubble or communication channel include at least one of: transformation of serial or two- dimensional transactions, the transformation comprising at least one of: passing keys, passwords, quantum bits, photonic algorithms, asset mining, blockchain transactions, distributed ledgers, bar codes, QR codes, RFIDs, retina IDs, facial verification, biometrics, or bio-characteristics (Oliver, figs 1, 10, 12, 13, and 15; see also par. 0032, 0083, 0087, 0094, and 0099, WALKER, par. 0018). The same motivation/reason used for the rejection of claim 21 is also valid for this claim. By this rationale, claim 37 is rejected.
40. (Currently Amended) The communication device of claim 32, wherein the information exchange is configured to transform internet functionality by enabling at least one of: bubble computing, transformational computing, additive computing, metamorphic computing; transaction settlement, financial platforms; a transmission, reception or harvesting of energy; regulating information exchanges; providing personal security, enhancing personal privacy, regulating devices; influencing or establishing rules to govern information cloud organization or communications; becoming a gatekeeper to determine which information is able to be received by the device, which information is to be shared by the device, or what information is exchanged within the intersection zone(s) or pathway(s) (Oliver, par. . 0114, 0116, 0135, 0043, 0096 and 0099).
41. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the wireless space is internal to a device, between two or more components that form a wireless hub of connectivity pathways that virtually allow the exchanging of signals between otherwise physically separated memory, processors, sensors, antennas or routers (WALKER, par. 0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oliver et al., US 20120110680 A1, in view of Wu et al., US 20060129277 Al.
Regarding claim 29, Oliver teaches the invention of claim 21, but fails to specifically disclose the details of the method of claim 21, wherein the device or bubble is initiated or controlled by at least one user's brainwave. This feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Wu. In the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses “...using a brain-wave detection technology to enable the user to control a distal-end robot purely via a consciousness activity and interact with the environment as if there were an entity representing the user's consciousness...” (see par. 0012, 0016 and 0020).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the brainwave mechanism of Wu within the system of Oliver, and omit the control technique of Oliver because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements performs the same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Using the brainwave element of Wu would facilitate the user’s interaction with the environment (see Wu, par. 0017). Even a user with disability can use this technique to communicate and execute his/her actions using an embedded internet robot system as stated by Wu in par. 0016. By this rationale, claim 29 is rejected.
30. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 21, wherein the one device or bubble includes system configured to translate between any combination of users, machines, devices, or systems (Wu, Abstract, 0016 and 0026).
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 21-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12273411 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the patent and the application essentially disclose a mothed/system to regulate information exchanges, and provide personal security and enhance personal privacy inside and outside a network and to regulate devices. A personal bio-data mining and pairing method of a human user to one or more communications devices capable of functioning in a network cloud environment is provided wherein the rules governing cloud organization and communications are based in part upon a human user bio-data and real-world information exchanges commonly occurring at specific geographical locations. By this rationale, claim 21-41 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36, 38, and 39 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.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jude Jean-Gilles whose telephone number is 571-272-3914. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, from 9:00AM-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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/JUDE JEAN GILLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
October 4, 2025