DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/30/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the instant Amendment, filed on 12/30/2026, claims 1, 10, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending; claims 11, 10, 18, and 20 are independent are independent. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 10/14/2025 and 02/04/2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
As to the rejections to claims 1, 10, 18, and 20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the rejections are maintained.
The Applicant submitted that the claims have been amended to recite additional feature, “being enabled to use one or more services based on the second response,” cannot be performed mentally such that the claims, at least as now amended, are statutory pursuant to Step 2A, prong 1. With respect to Step 2A, prong 2, the claims are integrated in a practical application. In this regard, the apparatus and method of the independent claims have now been amended to be performed by a first apparatus, a second apparatus, and a third apparatus and, as a result, to enable the first apparatus to use one or more services based on the second response, thereby even more clearly integrating the claims in a practical application (Applicant Arguments/Remarks, 12/30/2025, pages 8-10).
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that the additional amended limitation, “being enabled to use one or more services based on the second response,” merely cites that second response enable the use of one or more service, without any refine limitation as to how the second response is processed and evaluated in making the enablement decision, the limitation of the claims does not capture any algorithm of the term “based on” in enablement decision taking the consideration of the “second response.” Thus, the amended limitations of the claims, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, continues to cover performance of the limitation in the mind. Neither, the amended limitations of the claims, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, Viewing the limitations in whole, the amended limitations of the claims, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see the rejection section for detail rejections.
Applicant’s arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 12/30/2025, with respect to the prior-art rejections to claims 1-7, 9-16, and 19-20, and limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applied prior art continues to teach the claim limitations including the new limitations that are added or modified by the instant amendment.
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, 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 1, the claim cites, performing four function steps: “transmitting [ ] a first request,” “receiving [ ] a first response,” “transmitting [ ] a second request,” “receiving [ ] a second response,” and “being enable to use one or more services [ ],” along with refining limitations.
The limitations, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually performs the function steps. The limitations, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional element of the function steps does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, Viewing the limitations in combination, for example including the limitation, “[first request] for an authorization to access information about the at least one spatial anchor,” “[second request] based at least on the authorization, for accessing information about at least one spatial anchor,” transmitting and receiving from/to a “third apparatus,” and “[being enable] based on the second response,” also fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The addressed claimed functions, even with the additional limitations, reflect mental process steps, as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the field of data processing, and does not add significantly more to a judicial exception. Even considering, that the functions are performed by a claimed, apparatus comprising: instruction executed by at least on processor, they are generic computing functions that a person is able to conceptualize them mentally. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
As to the independent claims 10, 18, and 20, the claims cite limitations with similar scope to claim 1. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volini et al (“Volini,” US 2017/0111350, published on 04/20/2017), in view of Rajadurai et al (“Rajadurai,” US 2023/0164553, published on 05/25/2023).
As to claim 1, Volini teaches a first apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Volini: pars 0004-0006, a system and method, involving storage medium and processors, for generating and transmitting tokens for processing communication), cause the first apparatus at least to perform:
transmitting, to a second apparatus, a first request for an authorization to access information (Volini: pars 0004-0005, the system [i.e., second apparatus] receives a first communication from a second system [i.e., first apparatus], the first communication being associated with a credential and having been transmitted by the second system ) about the at least one spatial anchor (Volini: pars 0199, claims 5, 6, device token processing detects if is within a prescribed geographical area associated with the resource. Access-enabling code corresponds to a particular defined portion of the defined spatial area);
receiving, from the second apparatus, a first response indicating the authorization (Volini: pars 0004-0005, transmits a second communication [i.e., first response] to the second system, the second communication including a token [i.e., indication of authorization]);
transmitting, to a third apparatus, a second request based at least on the authorization for accessing information about at least one spatial anchor (Volini: pars 0199-2001, user device communicates with a site controller [i.e., third apparatus] with respect to the token and the associated access code, within a prescribed geographical area associated with the resource); and
receiving, from the third apparatus, a second response (Volini: pars 0199-2002, site controller requests to the user device [i.e. response] for the access code and other information, such as an identifier of a user, an identifier of a resource, or a location characteristic).
While Volini discloses of having a the site controller to communicate with primary assignment management system to determine that identifier of user device, an identifier of a user, an identifier of a resource, or a location characteristic is valid, and determine whether to unlock a gate of a resource and/or to control a presentation (see Volini: pars 2002, 2004), Volini does not explicitly teach the limitation, being enable to use one or more services based on the second response .
However, in an analogous art, Rajadurai teaches the limitation, being enable to use one or more services based on the second response (Rajadurai: pars 0048, 0054, authenticating specific identifiers of a user equipment (UE) to provide access to the network services in the wireless network. The mapping between service specific identifier in the service request with already authenticated ID of the UE to allow access to the network service provided by the application server in the wireless network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rajadurai with the method/system of Volini to include the limitation(s), being enable to use one or more services based on the second response, where one would have been motivated include a process where an apparatus or user device is being allowed to obtain service based on the verification communication and result of the verification (Rajadurai: pars 0048, 0054).
As to claim 2, the combination of Volini and Rajadurai teaches the first apparatus of claim 2,
Volini further teaches wherein the first response comprises an authorization code, and/or an access token; and/or wherein the first request and/or the second request includes at least one of: an identity of the first apparatus, an operation to the at least one spatial anchor, an identity of the at least one spatial anchor, a location area of interest, a user preference, and/or information for filter (Volini: pars 0004, 0199-2001, the first communication associated with a credential, the user device optionally sends the access code and other information, such as an identifier of a user, an identifier of a resource, or a location characteristic).
As to claim 3, the combination of Volini and Rajadurai teaches the first apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the first response further comprises an identity token; and wherein the identity token comprises: information about the first apparatus and/or information about a metaverse service related to a spatial anchor (Volini: pars 0004-0005, transmits a second communication [i.e., first response] to the second system, the second communication including a token).
As to claim 4, the combination of Volini and Rajadurai teaches the first apparatus of claim 2,
Volini further teaches wherein the second request is for discovering and/or managing the at least one spatial anchor; and wherein the second apparatus stores a list of spatial anchor identities mapped for the first apparatus, and/or a user represented by the first apparatus (Volini: par 0199, claims 5, 6, detecting that user device within a prescribed geographical area associated with the resource. Access-enabling code corresponds to a particular defined portion of the defined spatial area).
As to claim 5, the combination of Volini and Rajadurai teaches the first apparatus of claim 2,
Volini further teaches wherein the second request is for a management of information about the at least one spatial anchor; and wherein the management comprises at least one operation of: creating, reading, updating, and/or deleting (Volini: pars 0199-2001, 2004, user device communicates with a site controller [i.e., third apparatus] with respect to the token and the associated access code, within a prescribed geographical area associated with the resource, and Site controller unlocks a gate of a resource and/or to control a presentation using a verification communication).
As to claim 7, the combination of Volini and Rajadurai teaches the first apparatus of claim 2,
Volini further teaches wherein when the first response comprises the authorization code, the first apparatus transmits, to the second apparatus, a third request including the authorization code; wherein the first apparatus receives, from the second apparatus, a third response including the access token based at least on the authorization code; and wherein the second request includes the access token (Volini: pars 0199-2001, site controller requests to the user device [i.e. response] for the access code and other information, such as an identifier of a user, an identifier of a resource, or a location characteristic).
As to claim 9, the combination of Volini and Rajadurai teaches the first apparatus of claim 2,
Volini further teaches wherein when the first response comprises the access token, the second request comprises the access token (Volini: pars 0004-0005, transmits a second communication [i.e., first response] to the second system, the second communication including a token. pars 0199-2001, the user device sends the access code and other information, such as an identifier of a user, an identifier of a resource, or a location characteristic to the site controller).
As to claim 10, the scope of claim limitations is similar to the claim limitation of claim 1, with respecting to the action performing apparatus, and therefore, also rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
As to claims 11-14 and 16, the claims similar to the claims 2-5 and 7, and therefore, rejected for the same reason set forth above for claims 2-5 and 7.
As to claim 18, the claim is directed to a method, and the scope of claim limitations is similar to the claim limitation of claim 1, and therefore, also rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 1.
As to claim 19, the claims similar to the claims 2-5 and 7, and therefore, rejected for the same reason set forth above for claims 2-5 and 7.
As to claim 20, the claim is directed to a method, and the scope of claim limitations is similar to the claim limitation of claim 2, and therefore, also rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 2.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volini et al (“Volini,” US 20170111350, published on 04/20/2017), in view of Rajadurai et al (“Rajadurai,” US 2023/0164553, published on 05/25/2023), and further in view of Shahidzadeh et al (“Shahidzadeh,” US 11,888,839, patented on 01/30/2024).
As to claim 6, the combination of Volini and Rajadurai teaches the first apparatus of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach the limitation, wherein the authentication is an open identity connect, OIDC, authentication; or wherein the authentication is from a common application program interface framework for 3rd generation partnership project northbound application program interface, CAPIF, core function
However, in an analogous art, Shahidzadeh teaches wherein the authentication is an open identity connect, OIDC, authentication; or wherein the authentication is from a common application program interface framework for 3rd generation partnership project northbound application program interface, CAPIF, core function (Shahidzadeh: pars col 4, lines 24-41, col 23, lines 43-56, a verification process of a user entity and/or client device using information, including spatial information. Where the system provides authentication using an open id connection authentication (OIDC) for automatically approving or rejecting request based on policy, context, and risk factor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shahidzadeh with the method/system of Volini and Rajadurai to include the limitation(s), the authentication is an open identity connect, OIDC, authentication; or wherein the authentication is from a common application program interface framework for 3rd generation partnership project northbound application program interface, CAPIF, core function, where one would have been motivated open id connection authentication (OIDC) for automatically approving or rejecting request based on policy, context, and risk factor with respect to verification process of a user entity and/or client device using information, including spatial information (Shahidzadeh: pars col 4, lines 24-41, col 23, lines 43-56).
As to claim 15, the scope of the claim limitation is similar to the scope of claim 6, and therefore rejected for the same reason set forth above for claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
The dependent claims 8 and 17, which are considered allowable over the cited prior art, for which the reasons for allowable subject matter is incorporated with the reason stated in the Non-Final office action mailed out on 10/02/2025, are objected as it is depends on the associated rejected base claims, which are rejected above, and would be considered to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the associated rejected base claim(s).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jahangir Kabir whose telephone number is (571) 270-3355. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00- 5:00 Mon-Thu.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAHANGIR KABIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights