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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on July 7, 2025 are acceptable.
Response to Amendment / New Grounds of Rejection
The response filed on March 18, 2026 does not present any amendments and contains only remarks pursuant to the issues raised in the examiner interview on March 18, 2026. In light of the unamended claims and reconsideration of these issues, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been provided below. Therefore this action is non-final. Claims 1-20 are pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 16/169,768 filed on October 24, 2018, now U.S. Patent 11494757, U.S. application no. 17/961,232 filed on October 06, 2022, now U.S. Patent 11900354 and U.S. application no. 18/404,158 filed on January, 04, 2024 now U.S. Patent 12354079, ("Parent Applications"). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a device (Claims 1-4), a process (claims 4-17) and a manufacture (claims 18-20). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 4 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 4 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by an external device, a command that is intended for a user device and that originated from a server device;
identifying, by the external device, one or more other devices within a network of trust established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices; and
sending, by the external device, the command to the one or more other devices based on identifying the one or more other devices within a network of trust.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas of broadcasting a command to an intended recipient based on identifying trusted intermediaries. The claim achieves this by receiving the command, determining that the command is not intended for an entity, identify other participants and broadcast the command to the other participants. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions). Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Here claim 4 recite the additional elements of an external device, a user device and other devices. Independent claim 1 recite the additional elements of an external device, a user device and other devices, one or more memories and one or more processors. Independent claim 18 recites the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer readable media, at least one processor, an external device, a user device and other devices. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of a one or more non-transitory computer readable media, at least one processor, an external device, a user device and other devices in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., one or more non-transitory computer readable media, at least one processor, an external device, a user device and other devices) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claim 1, 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-17 and 19-20 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 10-12 further refine the abstract idea by determining a range, receiving responses and store information indicating that the external device and the one or more other devices are members of the network of trust. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 13-15 further refine the abstract idea by identifying other devices in the same network and establishing the network of trust. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5-9 and 19-20 further refine the abstract idea by describing the command. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 16-17 further refine the abstract idea by transmitting and receiving challenge between the devices. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-11, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al (US 10,728,314 B2), in view of Ottaviano (US_20210297483 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Singh discloses: An external device (See at least Singh, Fig. 1; Cross device
application discovery), comprising:
one or more memories (See at least Singh, Col 6 lines 31-32); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (See at least Singh, Col 6 lines 31-32), configured to:
receive a command that is intended for a user device (See at least Singh, Col. 20 lines 32-36; claim 13; a command (e.g., task) that is intended for a user device (i.e., one or more trusted devices).)
determine that the command is not intended for the external device; (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col. 20 lines 29-36; Col. 14 lines 39-42; Singh disclose; determine that the command is not intended for the external device (e.g., an application model discovery and control manager module on a target device, such as device 102, 200, and/or 304, receives an application discovery query from a source device. The application discovery query can include a request for application capability data on the one or more trusted devices, including the ability of an application to perform a task, the speed of an application, and/or other application performance data.an application (c20:29–36); For example, the source device 302 may be a smartphone. A user may want the results of a complex computation to display on source device 302, but the smartphone may not be capable of executing the computation)); thereby the source device determines that a target device (i.e., external device) should not be the intended recipient of certain commands due to the target device lacking relevant capabilities)
identify, based on determining that the command is not intended for the external device, one or more other devices within a network of trust established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices; and (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col 3 lines 45-47; Col 20 lines 29–39; Singh disclose, identify (i.e., discover) one or more other devices within a network of trust (i.e., trusted target devices connected via a network; The discovery can include locating a device with at least one application capable of executing a particular task) established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices (e.g., At block 604, the model remote control module on the source device, such as model remote control module 400 processes the remote device trust information, and determines if the remote device can be trusted. In some examples, a remote device sharing a user profile with the source device can be trusted.)
Singh disclose receiving a task, discovering what target devices might be capable (or not capable) of performing the task, and then sending the task to one or more trusted devices. Singh does not explicitly disclose that the task originated on a server (e.g., separate device). Ottaviano, on the other hand teaches:
receive a command that is intended for a user device and that originated from a server device; (See at least Ottaviano, [0035-0036]; [0040] Ottaviano disclose; receive a command (i.e., command) that is intended for a user device (i.e., IoT devices) and that originated from a server device (i.e., remote controller).)
broadcast the command through the network of trust by sending the command to the one or more other devices based on identifying the one or more other devices within a network of trust. (See at least Ottaviano, Fig. 3; [0035-0036], [0040] Ottaviano disclose; broadcast the command (i.e., rebroadcast the command) through the network of trust (i.e., in the ad hoc network) based on identifying the one or more other devices within a network of trust.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh and include Octaviano’s teachings in order to improve delivery of commands to appropriate trusted devices and ensure that the capable device receives and executes the command.
Regarding claim 4: Singh discloses: A method, comprising:
receive a command that is intended for a user device (See at least Singh, Col. 20 lines 32-36; claim 13; a command (e.g., task) that is intended for a user device (i.e., one or more trusted devices).)
identifying, by the external device, one or more other devices within a network of trust established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices; and (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col 3 lines 45-47; Singh disclose, identify (i.e., discover) one or more other devices within a network of trust (i.e., trusted target devices connected via a network; The discovery can include locating a device with at least one application capable of executing a particular task) established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices (e.g., At block 604, the model remote control module on the source device, such as model remote control module 400 processes the remote device trust information, and determines if the remote device can be trusted. In some examples, a remote device sharing a user profile with the source device can be trusted.)
Singh disclose receiving a task, sending the task to one or more trusted devices. Singh does not explicitly disclose that the task originated on a server (e.g., separate device). Ottaviano, on the other hand teaches:
receive a command that is intended for a user device and that originated from a server device; (See at least Ottaviano, [0035-0036]; [0040] Ottaviano disclose; receive a command (i.e., command) that is intended for a user device (i.e., IoT devices) and that originated from a server device (i.e., remote controller).)
sending, by the external device, the command to the one or more other devices based on identifying the one or more other devices within a network of trust. (See at least Ottaviano, Fig. 3; [0035-0036], [0040] Ottaviano disclose; sending the command (i.e., rebroadcast the command) through the network of trust (i.e., in the ad hoc network) based on identifying the one or more other devices within a network of trust.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh and include Octaviano’s teachings in order to improve delivery of commands to appropriate trusted devices and ensure that the capable deice receives and executes the command.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination further disclose wherein receiving the command comprises:
receiving the command as data pushed to an application on the external device. (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 55-59; Thus, after the source device selects an application on the one or more target devices, the source device can send an activation message instructing the one or more target devices to activate the application and run a particular task in the application.).
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination further disclose, wherein the command includes at least a set of instructions to be executed by the user device. (See at least Singh, Col. 3 lines 47-50; A task can support a particular user activity through an application on a device, such as watching a movie, reading a news article, writing a document, or a myriad of other activities.).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination further disclose:
determining that the command is not intended for the external device before identifying the one or more other devices within the network of trust. (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col 3 lines 45-47; discover trusted target devices connected via a network; The discovery can include locating a device with at least one application capable of executing a particular task. )
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose discloses the method of claim 4. The combination further disclose, wherein the one or more other devices include the user device. (See at least Singh, Col. 2 lines 46-55; Col. 12 lines 32-34; The discovery and/or control of applications can occur on multiple active devices trusted by a user. In some example implementations, a device can be trusted if the device is configured on a user profile, a group profile, and/or is otherwise authenticated by a user.)
Regarding claim 18: One or more non-transitory computer readable media (See at least Singh, Fig. 1) configured to store instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an external device, cause the at least one processor to perform processing comprising:
receive a command that is intended for a user device (See at least Singh, Col. 20 lines 32-36; claim 13; a command (e.g., task) that is intended for a user device (i.e., one or more trusted devices).)
identifying, by the external device, one or more other devices within a network of trust established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices; and (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col 3 lines 45-47; Singh disclose, identify (i.e., discover) one or more other devices within a network of trust (i.e., trusted target devices connected via a network; The discovery can include locating a device with at least one application capable of executing a particular task) established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices (e.g., At block 604, the model remote control module on the source device, such as model remote control module 400 processes the remote device trust information, and determines if the remote device can be trusted. In some examples, a remote device sharing a user profile with the source device can be trusted.)
Singh disclose receiving a task, sending the task to one or more trusted devices. Singh does not explicitly disclose that the task originated on a server (e.g., separate device). Singh, on the other hand teaches:
receive a command that is intended for a user device and that originated from a server device; (See at least Ottaviano, [0035-0036]; [0040] Ottaviano disclose; receive a command (i.e., command) that is intended for a user device (i.e., IoT devices) and that originated from a server device (i.e., remote controller).)
sending, by the external device, the command to the one or more other devices based on identifying the one or more other devices within a network of trust. (See at least Ottaviano, Fig. 3; [0035-0036], [0040] Ottaviano disclose; sending the command (i.e., rebroadcast the command) through the network of trust (i.e., in the ad hoc network) based on identifying the one or more other devices within a network of trust.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh and include Octaviano’s teachings in order to improve delivery of commands to appropriate trusted devices and ensure that the capable deice receives and executes the command.
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 18. The combination further disclose: determining that the command is not intended for the external device before identifying the one or more other devices within the network of trust. (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col 3 lines 45-47; discover trusted target devices connected via a network; The discovery can include locating a device with at least one application capable of executing a particular task.)
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh and Ottaviano as applied above to claims 1, 4 and 18 and further in view of Peterson (US 2018/0159984 A1) “Peterson”.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the external device of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches: broadcast a challenge to a plurality of devices that are within challenge range of the external device, wherein the plurality of devices includes the one or more other devices; (See at least Peterson [0068-0069] another embodiment, the list module 302 identifies the trusted portable communication devices 106, 108, 110 of the trusted users. For example, the list module 302 may store a device identifier ("ID"), a network address, etc. of the trusted portable communication devices 106, 108, 110, such as a Bluetooth ID, an RFID tag, etc. so that the proximity module 206 may determine if the trusted portable communication devices 106,108, 110 are in proximity to the primary user. The list module 302 may store any information of a trusted user useful for determining proximity of a trusted user and for rerouting the electronic message.)
receive one or more responses from the one or more other devices; and (See at least Peterson,[ 0068-0070] e.g., when portable communication devices are within the proximity limit)
store, based on receiving the one or more responses, information indicating that the external device and the one or more other devices are members of the network of trust. (See at least Peterson, [0068-0069]; For example, the list module 302 may store a device identifier ("ID"), a network address, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches: identify the one or more other devices within the network of trust based on stored information indicating that the external device and the one or more other devices are members of the network of trust. (See at least Peterson, [0066]; [0068-0069]; For example, the list module 302 may store a device identifier ("ID"), a network address, etc. In one embodiment, the list module 302 receives input from the primary user to identify trusted users. The trusted users may be family members, close friends, traveling companions, business associates, and the like. The primary user may adjust the list of trusted users from time to time or may frequently change trusted users. For example, the primary user may use the list module 302 to choose one or more trusted users at the start of travel..).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches: receiving the command from the server device through a transmission from the server device. (See at least Peterson, [0045] A portable communication device ( e.g. 104) may communicate with the trusted portable communication devices (e.g. 106, 108, 110) by establishing a wireless connection between the primary portable communication device 104 to a server 116 associated with the wireless connection, then communication between servers 116, and then a wireless connection between a server 116 associated with a trusted communication device (e.g. 106).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches: receiving the command from a different external device after the different external device receives the command from the server device and broadcasts the command to a plurality of devices that include the external device. (See at least Peterson, [0028]; [0031]; [0033]; detect that a portable communication device of a trusted user on a list of one more trusted users is in proximity to the primary user.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches: wherein the command includes an indication of an identity of the user device. (See at least Peterson, [0029]; In another embodiment, establishing the list of trusted users includes receiving input from the primary user that identifies trusted users. In another embodiment, establishing the list of trusted users includes receiving input from the primary user that links each trusted user to one or more identifiers, where each identifier is associated with a communication method for rerouting the electronic communication to the trusted user's portable communication device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches:
establishing the network of trust by broadcasting a challenge to a plurality of devices that are within challenge range of the external device, (See at least Peterson [0068-0069] another embodiment, the list module 302 identifies the trusted portable communication devices 106, 108, 110 of the trusted users. For example, the list module 302 may store a device identifier ("ID"), a network address, etc. of the trusted portable communication devices 106, 108, 110, such as a Bluetooth ID, an RFID tag, etc. so that the proximity module 206 may determine if the trusted portable communication devices 106,108, 110 are in proximity to the primary user. The list module 302 may store any information of a trusted user useful for determining proximity of a trusted user and for rerouting the electronic message.)
wherein the plurality of devices includes the one or more other devices. (See at least Peterson, [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly disclose, however Peterson teaches: establishing the network of trust by receiving one or more responses, to a challenge, from the one or more other devices. (See at least Peterson,[ 0068-0070] e.g., when portable communication devices are within the proximity limit.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano discloses the method of claim 4. Singh does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches: establishing the network of trust by storing information indicating that the external device and the one or more other devices are members of the network of trust. (See at least Peterson, [0068-0069]; For example, the list module 302 may store a device identifier ("ID"), a network address, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano discloses the method of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches: identifying the one or more other devices within the network of trust based on stored information indicating that the external device and the one or more other devices are members of the network of trust. (See at least Peterson, [0066]; [0068-0069]; For example, the list module 302 may store a device identifier ("ID"), a network address, etc. In one embodiment, the list module 302 receives input from the primary user to identify trusted users. The trusted users may be family members, close friends, traveling companions, business associates, and the like. The primary user may adjust the list of trusted users from time to time or may frequently change trusted users. For example, the primary user may use the list module 302 to choose one or more trusted users at the start of travel. For example, the list module 302 may store a device identifier ("ID"), a network address, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 18. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches wherein the command includes at least a set of instructions to be executed by the user device and an indication of an identity of the user device. (See at least Peterson, [0029]; In another embodiment, establishing the list of trusted users includes receiving input from the primary user that identifies trusted users. In another embodiment, establishing the list of trusted users includes receiving input from the primary user that links each trusted user to one or more identifiers, where each identifier is associated with a communication method for rerouting the electronic communication to the trusted user's portable communication device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh and Ottaviano as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hobbs et al. (US 10721706 B2).
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Hobbs teaches:
receiving, by the external device, a challenge from a device of the one or more other
devices; and (See at least Hobbs, Col. 15 lines 40-59; 61) In addition, once short-range communications are established between the Bluetooth LE enabled beacon 430a and the computing device 404, the Bluetooth LE enabled beacon 430a can send a message to the computing device 404 for display to the user 402 (Joe) on the display portion 414 of the computing device 404. The message can request if the user 402 would like to allow the receipt of future communications related to the entity 430. In some cases, the user 402 may allow (consent to) receiving future communications related to the entity 430. The consent to receive further communications related to the entity 430 can be stored locally on the computing device 404 for further upload to a computer system 408 when the computing device 404 of the user 402 can establish long-range communications with the computer system 408. In some cases, the user 402 may not allow (not consent to) receiving future communications related to the entity 430. The refusal to receive future communications from the entity 430 may also be stored locally on the computing device 404.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Hobbs’s teachings in so The computing device of the user can use the proximity information along with the information related to and about the user of the computing device to provide a customized experience to the user by delivering to the user relevant information that is important to the user within the current context of the computing device of the user. See Hobbs, Col. 4 lines 1-6.
The combination of Singh, Ottaviano and Hobbs does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches:
establishing the network of trust by generating a response to the challenge from the device of the one or more other devices. ((See at least Peterson, [0068-0070] e.g., when portable communication devices are within the proximity limit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of the above combination teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Singh and Ottaviano disclose the method of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly disclose; however Peterson teaches:
transmitting, by the external device, a first challenge to a device of the one or more other devices; ; (See at least Peterson [0068-0069])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Singh teachings provided by Peterson in order to provide protection against unauthorized devices.
The combination of Singh, Ottaviano and Peterson does not explicitly disclose however Hobbs teaches:
receiving, by the external device and from the device of the one or more other devices, a transmission that includes a second challenge and a response to the first challenge; and (See at least Hobbs, Col. 15 lines 40-59; 61) In addition, once short-range communications are established between the Bluetooth LE enabled beacon 430a and the computing device 404, the Bluetooth LE enabled beacon 430a can send a message to the computing device 404 for display to the user 402 (Joe) on the display portion 414 of the computing device 404. The message can request if the user 402 would like to allow the receipt of future communications related to the entity 430. In some cases, the user 402 may allow (consent to) receiving future communications related to the entity 430. The consent to receive further communications related to the entity 430 can be stored locally on the computing device 404 for further upload to a computer system 408 when the computing device 404 of the user 402 can establish long-range communications with the computer system 408. In some cases, the user 402 may not allow (not consent to) receiving future communications related to the entity 430. The refusal to receive future communications from the entity 430 may also be stored locally on the computing device 404.)
establishing the network of trust based on the response to the first challenge and by transmitting, to the device of the one or more other devices, a response to the second challenge. (See at least Hobbs, Hobbs, Col. 15 lines 40-59; 61 The message can request if the user 402 would like to allow the receipt of future communications related to the entity 430. In some cases, the user 402 may allow (consent to) receiving future communications related to the entity 430. The consent to receive further communications related to the entity 430 can be stored locally on the computing device 404 for further upload to a computer system 408 when the computing device 404 of the user 402 can establish long-range communications with the computer system 408.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination and include Hobbs’s teachings in so the computing device of the user can use the proximity information along with the information related to and about the user of the computing device to provide a customized experience to the user by delivering to the user relevant information that is important to the user within the current context of the computing device of the user. See Hobbs, Col. 4 lines 1-6.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that “the Office Action fails to identify the abstract idea as it is recited in the claim (Remarks, p. 9.). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office Action mailed on (12/29/2025) identified the abstract idea as recited in the claims. However, to provide additional clarity, Examiner has revised the 101 rejection. As mentioned above, in the 101 reelection section, the claims recites the abstract idea of broadcasting a command to an intended recipient based in identifying trusted intermediaries. The claim achieves this by receiving the command, determining that the command is not intended for the entity, identify other participants in a network and broadcast the command to the other participants.
Applicant asserts that the Office Action goes beyond the enumerated concepts to suggest that "information transmission" is an example of "commercial or legal interactions (Remarks, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, to provide additional clarity, Examiner has revised the 101 rejection. As mentioned above, This abstract idea, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Applicant asserts that “even assuming the claims involve an exception, which Applicant does not concede, that would not mean that claims recite an abstract idea” (Remarks, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of broadcasting a command to an intended recipient based in identifying trusted intermediaries.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant asserts that “SINGH does not disclose "determine that the command is not intended for the external device" and "identify, based on determining that the command is not intended for the external device, one or more other devices within a network of trust established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices,” (Remarks, p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Singh disclose determine that the command is not intended for the external device; (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col. 20 lines 29-36; Col. 14 lines 39-42; Singh disclose; determine that the command is not intended for the external device (e.g., For example, the source device 302 may be a smartphone. A user may want the results of a complex computation to display on source device 302, but the smartphone may not be capable of executing the computation).) and identify, based on determining that the command is not intended for the external device, one or more other devices within a network of trust established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices; (See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col 3 lines 45-47; Singh disclose, identify (i.e., discover) one or more other devices within a network of trust (i.e., trusted target devices connected via a network; The discovery can include locating a device with at least one application capable of executing a particular task) established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices (e.g., At block 604, the model remote control module on the source device, such as model remote control module 400 processes the remote device trust information, and determines if the remote device can be trusted. In some examples, a remote device sharing a user profile with the source device can be trusted.)
Applicant asserts that SINGH does not disclose or suggest identifying "one or more other devices within a network of trust established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices," (Remarks, p. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. See at least Singh, Col. 1 lines 40-51; Col 3 lines 45-47; Singh disclose, identify (i.e., discover) one or more other devices within a network of trust (i.e., trusted target devices connected via a network; The discovery can include locating a device with at least one application capable of executing a particular task) established by at least the external device and the one or more other devices (e.g., At block 604, the model remote control module on the source device, such as model remote control module 400 processes the remote device trust information, and determines if the remote device can be trusted. In some examples, a remote device sharing a user profile with the source device can be trusted.)
Examiner notes that prior art Singh fails to disclose the structure of the claimed invention. For example, the claims requires the external device receiving the command the external device broadcasting the device. However, Singh teaches that the source device send the command (i.e., task) to the trusted devices. The claims rejections now relies on the combination of Singh and Ottaviano. In accordance with MPEP 706.07, this change constitutes a new ground of rejection and finality is not appropriate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winter (US 2012/0005281 A1): The unified communications system also comprises a first device configured to receive commands formatted according to the common protocol, sort received commands into commands intended for the first device and intended for another device among a plurality of devices, and forward commands intended for another device of the plurality of devices. The unified communication system further comprises a second device configured to receive commands formatted according to the common protocol, sort received commands into commands intended for the second device or intended for another device among a plurality of devices, and forward commands intended for another device of the plurality of devices. [0013]
Beals (US 2010/0165216 A1): One embodiment may take the form of a method for routing a signal to a target device. The method may include a control device that may transmit a signal on a first network. The signal may reach devices other than the target device. The devices that receive the signal may recognize that the signal is intended for another device and may transmit the signal on a second network. The signal may be received by the target device via the second network. Abs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights