DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In view of the appeal brief filed on 06/25/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellants must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Nevertheless, due to newly found deficiencies with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 112 and 102 rejection, the prosecution has been re-opened to provide the applicant with a chance to respond to the newly raised issues.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the State of Israel on December 12, 2010. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of Israeli Application No. IL210169 as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55. Although the submission of the certified copy of the foreign priority application was signed on December 19, 2011, the submission did not include a certified copy of Israeli Application No. IL210169. Accordingly, the foreign priority claim has not been perfected.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
The disclosure of the prior-filed application here, Application No. 62/430,275 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, it fails to provide adequate support for at least the:
receiving, by the first cellular telephone device from a first device over a first wireless network, an identifier of the first device; claim 1.
sending, by the first cellular telephone device to a first server over the Internet, using a second wireless network that is different from the first wireless network;” in claim 1.
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network, the identifier, in claim 1.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application here, Application No. 13/325,438 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, it fails to provide adequate support for at least the:
receiving, by the first cellular telephone device from a first device over a first wireless network, an identifier of the first device; claim 1.
sending, by the first cellular telephone device to a first server over the Internet, using a second wireless network that is different from the first wireless network;” in claim 1.
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network, the identifier, in claim 1.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application here, Application No.14/492551 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, it fails to provide adequate support for at least the:
receiving, by the first cellular telephone device from a first device over a first wireless network, an identifier of the first device; claim 1.
sending, by the first cellular telephone device to a first server over the Internet, using a second wireless network that is different from the first wireless network;” in claim 1.
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network, the identifier, in claim 1.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application here, Application No.15/679,185 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, it fails to provide adequate support for at least the:
receiving, by the first cellular telephone device from a first device over a first wireless network, an identifier of the first device; claim 1.
sending, by the first cellular telephone device to a first server over the Internet, using a second wireless network that is different from the first wireless network;” in claim 1.
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network, the identifier, in claim 1.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application here, Application No.16/807,757 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, it fails to provide adequate support for at least the:
receiving, by the first cellular telephone device from a first device over a first wireless network, an identifier of the first device; claim 1.
sending, by the first cellular telephone device to a first server over the Internet, using a second wireless network that is different from the first wireless network;” in claim 1.
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network, the identifier, in claim 1.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application here, Application No.17/685,410 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
It fails to provide adequate support for at least the:
receiving, by the first cellular telephone device from a first device over a first wireless network, an identifier of the first device; claim 1.
sending, by the first cellular telephone device to a first server over the Internet, using a second wireless network that is different from the first wireless network;” in claim 1.
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network, the identifier, in claim 1.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application here, Application No.18/545489 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, it fails to provide adequate support for at least the:
receiving, by the first cellular telephone device from a first device over a first wireless network, an identifier of the first device; claim 1.
sending, by the first cellular telephone device to a first server over the Internet, using a second wireless network that is different from the first wireless network;” in claim 1.
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network, the identifier, in claim 1.
No portion of the prior-filed application describes any of the above features. Accordingly, NONE of the claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, The claim recites receiving … an identifier, sending the identifier … and again receiving the same identifier by the other.
The limitation of receiving … an identifier, sending the identifier … and again receiving the same identifier by the other., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by the human but for the recitation of generic components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor, server/ cellular telephone” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor in the claim” language, “receiving… and sending .. and receiving…” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can process without the cellular telephone/server.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. specifically, the category of mental processes and information analysis, with the aid of a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD".
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – wireless network protocol with those steps. Those protocols in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of those steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform those steps 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 2, this claim includes the communication path between devices, this is not significantly more. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology". As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 3, this clam recites a generic device, merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology". As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 4, the dependent claim 4 disclose pairing can be done by human between two devices, and as a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 5, this claim recites displaying by the screen. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 6, this claim recites the devices are located disparate locations. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 7, this claim recites different cities. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 8, this claim recites telephone devise are in the same location. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 9, this claim recites location in the city and state. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 10, this claim recites the wireless and cellular network. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 11, this claim recites the LAN network. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 12, this claim recites the device router, computer and gateway. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 13, this claim recites the device co-located with the security device. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 14, this claim recites the firewall. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per clam 15, this claim recites the few servers. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 16, this claim recites the laptop. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 17, this claim recites processors and telephones. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 18, this claim recites cellular telephone with internet with server. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 19, this claim recites mobile communication (GSM). This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 20, this claim recites telephone numbers. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
As per claim 21, this claim recites IP address. This limitation is not significantly more. As a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II), "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD". "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to existing technology".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, this claim recites the limitation “the multi-device cellular /PAN/Internet identifier-transfer flow”.
The claim recites a first cellular telephone device receiving an identifier from a first device over a first wireless network, sending the received identifier to a first server over the Internet using a second wireless network different from the first wireless network, and a second cellular telephone device receiving the identifier from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network different from the first and second wireless networks. The claim further requires that the first wireless network comprise, be based on, or use a Personal Area Network (PAN), including Bluetooth or Ultra-Wideband (UWB), and that the second or third wireless network comprise, be based on, or use a cellular network.
The specification, however, appears directed to message slicing, relay servers, packet routing, and memory/data scrambling, and does not describe or reasonably convey possession of the claimed multi-device, multi-network identifier-transfer workflow. The disclosure does not appear to teach the specific arrangement of a first cellular telephone device, a first device, a first server, and a second cellular telephone device operating across the recited distinct wireless networks and the Internet in the manner claimed.
The limitation of claim 1, sending an identifier over the Internet in the manner recited, although the specification mentions identifiers such as IP addresses, MAC addresses, port numbers, slice numbers, and location tokens, those identifiers are disclosed only in the context of packet routing, message slicing, relay-server forwarding, or storage mapping. The specification does not appear to disclose the claimed act of receiving an identifier from a first device at a first cellular telephone device and then sending that identifier to a server over the Internet using a different wireless network, nor does it disclose receiving that identifier at a second cellular telephone device over the Internet using yet another wireless network. Accordingly, the specification does not appear to provide written description support for the claimed identifier transmission sequence.
The limitation of claim 1, No written-description support for “over the Internet” as claimed, the specification discusses the Internet generally in connection with message routing, packet forwarding, and relay servers. However, it does not appear to disclose the specific use of the Internet as recited in the claim, namely: a first cellular telephone device sending a received identifier to a first server over the Internet using a second wireless network different from the first wireless network, and a second cellular telephone device receiving the identifier from the first server over the Internet using a third wireless network different from the first and second wireless networks. The disclosure therefore does not appear to describe the claimed Internet-based identifier transfer architecture with sufficient particularity to demonstrate possession of the claimed subject matter.
The limitation of claim 1, the first wireless network as a PAN based on Bluetooth or UWB. While the specification includes broad references to wireless communication and various device types, it does not appear to disclose a first wireless network in the claimed configuration, namely a Personal Area Network based on Bluetooth or Ultra-Wideband, used for receiving an identifier at a first cellular telephone device from a first device. The specification therefore does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed wireless-network arrangement.
The limitation of claim 1, the specification does not describe the second or third wireless network as a cellular network as claimed. The specification’s references to cellular telephones are general and appear only as examples of possible devices, not as disclosure of a claimed network architecture in which a first cellular telephone device sends a received identifier over the Internet using a second wireless network and a second cellular telephone device receives that identifier over the Internet using a third wireless network, where at least one of the second or third wireless networks is cellular. The disclosure does not appear to describe the recited cellular-network-based transmission path with sufficient specificity to show possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1 recites, a single non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by processors in two different cellular telephone devices.
The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more first hardware processors in a first cellular telephone device, cause performance of certain steps, and further comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more second hardware processors in a second cellular telephone device different from the first cellular telephone device, cause performance of additional steps. The specification does not appear to describe a single medium having instructions for execution on two different cellular telephone devices, nor does it explain how the claimed instructions are distributed, stored, or executed across the recited devices. The disclosure therefore does not appear to provide written-description support for the claimed article-of-manufacture/dual-device instruction structure. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for failing to satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
In claim 1, Frist cellular telephone [Wingdings font/0xE0] first server [Wingdings font/0xE0] over the Internet”, sending … over Internet, using a second wireless network, the specifications’ parts 0071, 0173, 0200, and 0247 do not disclose about using the second wireless network over internet or the first cellular telephone is using the Internet combined with the second wireless network. The specification merely describes using the second wireless network over the Internet or the combination of thereof.
In claim 1, Receiving [Wingdings font/0xE0] by the second cellular telephone [Wingdings font/0xE0] receiving …. over the Internet using a third wireless network, the specifications’ parts 0058, 0066-0067, 0205 and 0180 do not disclose about using the third wireless network over internet or the second cellular telephone is using the Internet combined with the third wireless network. The specification merely describes using the third wireless network over the Internet or the combination of thereof.
In claim 1, this claim recites “ one or more hardware processor in a first cellular telephone device in lines 2-3. The processor in the first cellular telephone does not mean that there is a communication that has been established between the processor and the first cellular telephone device. The best parts of specification 0043 discloses that a communication link(Ethernet and LAN PAN WAN). Thus, there is no description for a processor or that causes “ forming a communication path via the first cellular telephone to received an identifier.
In claim 1, this clam recites limitation of one or more hardware processors in a first cellular telephone device, cause performance of steps in lines 2-3, the part of the specification, par 0045 discloses [0045-0283] InfiniBand is a switched fabric communications link used in high-performance computing and enterprise data centers. The specification merely describes the performance test of the processor to perform the steps of the claim.
In claim 4, this claim recites the limitation “paired as a sender and recipient”. the claim requires that “the first device/a first cellular telephone device and the second cellular telephone set are paired as a sender and a recipient,” Part of the specification, 0082, 0166, 0285 discloses USB adapter pair and par 0343 discloses pairing of network endpoint devices using the USP adapter pair. The specification merely describes how the paring has occurred between a sender and recipient. but the specification never defines or provides disclosure as to what “paired” means in this context or how the applicant intends to perform this or function achieved. A skilled artisan cannot determine the required pairing mechanism or criteria or whether any pairing suffices to have possession of the full scope of the claim.
In claim 5, this claim recites the limitation displaying by a screen in the second cellular telephone, an information…., the best part of the specification, par 0062 discloses the slicing scheme or any other information about the partitioning may be sent together with one or more of the message slices. Further, information about a message slice is sent together with another slice. The order of sending the message slices may be random or based on the order of the first message element in each message slice of the message. and Par 0074 discloses [0074] the information required to decrypt the received message or slice. A CAPTCHA may include information about a key public or private) used for encryption. In one example, the CAPTCHA may include information about the slicing scheme or any other information involving the reconstruction of the sent message. The speciation merely describes a message, or captcha is displaying on screen of the second cellular telephone but it did not display the received identifier.
In claim 6, the claim requires that the “first and second cellular telephone sets are located at geographically disparate locations” (and recites “different cities, different states, different countries, or different continents”). The specification as filed contains explicit disclosure and examples that relay servers and intermediate servers may be geographically disparate (e.g., examples enumerating relay servers located in different continents, countries, and cities). However, the specification does not describe, exemplify, or otherwise disclose the cellular telephone sets (the claimed “first” and “second” cellular telephone sets) being located in geographically disparate locations. And while the original claims me be considered part of the specification, the specification fails to disclose the method or mechanism by which the telephone sets determine or establish that they are in disparate locations or disparate different cities/states/countries/continents.
In claim 13, this claim recites the limitation …integrated or co-located with a security device. The part of the specification, par 0066-0067 discloses The sender or the receiver (or the intermediate server) may be co-located or integrated with a computer, router (e.g., NAT-enabled router), a gateway or a firewall (e.g., sharing an enclosure, an Internet connection, a LAN connection, an IP address, a processor or a peripheral device), and connected between a LAN and the Internet. , par 0343 discloses secured communication between a pair of network endpoint devices (host-to-host), the described method can equally be used to protect the data flow between a pair of gateways or any other networking-associated devices (network-to-network), or between a network device (e.g., security gateway) and a host (network-to-host). From the above discussion, it cannot be seen as an enough disclosure of integration or co-located with the security device. Thus, the speciation merely describes integration or co-location with other devices in the network.
In claim 15, this claim recites the limitation combination thereof. This claim recites the first server is integrated with and followed by many servers. Par 0025 discloses parallel (wherein each data word is carried in parallel on multiple electrical conductors or wires), serial (such as bit-serial connections), or a combination of both, and the bus may be wired in various topologies such as multi-drop (electrical parallel) or daisy-chain, [0035] A memory may be accessed via a parallel connection or bus (wherein each data word is carried in parallel on multiple electrical conductors or wires), such as PATA, PCMCIA or EISA, or via serial bus (such as bit-serial connections) such as USB or Ethernet based on IEEE802.3 standard, or a combination of both. Par 0083 [0083] An adapter or an address/data scrambler (or any part thereof) may be implemented by software or firmware, hardware or a combination of both. [0086] The scrambler may be based on logic gates implementing a Boolean function, such as discretely packaged logic gates, PLD, memory or a processor. The conversion may be according to a pre-set conversion scheme, which may be programmable by the processor. The scrambler may be coupled to the first bus for being addressed by the processor. The second bus type may be of the same type as the first bus, or may be of a type that is distinct from the first bus type. The adapter may include the memory, and the memory may be based on electrostatic, ferroelectric, magnetic, acoustic, optical, chemical, electronic, electrical, or mechanical storage medium, or any combination thereof. [0336] The arrangements and methods described herein may be implemented using hardware, software or a combination of both. It can be concluded from the above discussion that specification merely describes about the first server combination with other servers. Thus, the specification fails to disclose the claim limitation.
In claim 17, this claim recites the limitation processor further cause performance of encrypting… Specification discloses [0283] Using data or address scrambling according to one or more of the schemes described herein provides the advantage of encrypting the content stored in the memory 171. The encryption mechanism is independent and invisible from the processor 163, and is transparent to the software (or firmware) executed by the processor 163 (such as operating system), thus minimizing the risk of malware or virus attacking the encryption method. The encryption is further notably transparent to a user, and in most cases the scrambling scheme operation cannot be detected by the user. Using scrambling as described in some non-limiting examples herein requires only the connection of an adapter 226 (including the data, address or both scramblers hardware and related components). In some aspects, there may be no need for any modifications or any changes in the processor 163 related hardware or any software being executed by the computer system. Similarly, in most cases there is no need for any modification to the memory 171 involved. Further, the computer system’s performance will not be degraded. Mostly, the address or data mapping operation of the scramblers may induce a negligible latency accessing memory 171. The above discussion can be seen as describing the encryption mechanism. The specification merely describes the performance of the encryption test.
Accordingly, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had procession, as of the filing data, of the claimed invention. But the claimed limitations do not disclose the invention as claimed in the requisite level of details. See MPEP 2163,2163.02.
As in MPEP 2161.01 “For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement").”
“The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. "[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective." LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733.”
As per claims 2-3, 7-14,16,19-21, the independent claims 2-3, 7-14,16,19-21 disclose similar limitations present in independent claim 1 above, and as a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per clam 1, the claim recites the limitation “a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network.” Thus, the claim requires the third wireless network to be distinct from both the first wireless network and the second wireless network. Later, however, claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein the second or third wireless network comprises or is based on a cellular network.” The relationship between these limitations is unclear because the claim permits either the second wireless network or the third wireless network to comprise or be based on a cellular network, while simultaneously requiring the second and third wireless networks to be different from one another. For example, if the second wireless network is the cellular network, the claim requires the third wireless network to be different from the second wireless network. However, the claim does not provide sufficient clarity as to whether the third wireless network may also be a cellular network, and, if so, what characteristic or network configuration distinguishes the third wireless network from the second wireless network. Conversely, if the third wireless network is the cellular network, the claim requires the third wireless network to be different from the second wireless network. Yet, if the second wireless network is also a cellular network, it is unclear from the claim what distinguishes the second wireless network from the third wireless network. Accordingly, the claim does not provide a reasonably clear boundary as to the scope of the terms “second wireless network,” “third wireless network,” and “cellular network.” It is unclear how the second and third wireless networks can be distinguished from one another when either, or potentially both, are described as comprising or being based on a cellular network.
Moreover, in claim 1, the last limitation is “wherein the second or third wireless network comprises is based on a cellular network. It seems that those networks are a single cellular network. The fourth paragraph recited a “different from the first and second wireless network”. Then it can be assumed that this claim requires only two types of wireless network. It is not clear the boundary of the wireless network is required for this claim limitations. Examiner is considering the two wireless networks for examination purposes.
Therefore, the relationship between the recited wireless networks is ambiguous, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite because the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
As per claim 6, the claim requires that the “first and second cellular telephone sets are located at geographically disparate locations” (and recites “different cities, different states, different countries, or different continents”). The specification as filed contains explicit disclosure and examples that relay servers and intermediate servers may be geographically disparate (e.g., examples enumerating relay servers located in different continents, countries, and cities). However, it is not clear how those devices are determining the disparate locations and hoping from locations to locations.
As per claim 10, this claim requires that the “second and third wireless network comprises a respective cellular network. It is assumed that second and third wireless network are two networks, and the claim said the second and third wireless network is a respective cellular network that is equal to the same network. How is it possible that two wireless (second and third) networks are the same network? Thus, it is not clear the boundary of network exits in the claim.
As per claim 15, this claim recite the limitation “combination thereof”, it is not clear how the first server combined with what servers ( web, database, mail, FTP, DHCP, DNS or any). There would be one to many, and many to many relationships between those servers. What is referring to the any? Thus, this claim is indefinite.
As per claim 19, this claim recites the phase where the mobile communication GSM is a registered trademark. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe in the specification and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
As per claims 2-18, and 20-21, the independent claims 2-18, and 20-21 disclose similar limitations present in independent claim 1 above, and as a result, is also rejected for similar reasons to claims 1 and 19 respectfully above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
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 1-4,6-13,15, and 18-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kliland et al US 2002/0065905 in view of Terada (US 2005/0144219) in view of Lee et al US 2008/0167045.
As per claim 1, Kliland discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction which, when executed by one or more first hardware processors in a first cellular telephone device (fig.1, 0047 a mobile phone terminal, i.e. a first cellular telephone device, for downloading personal profiles or settings to configure the equipment), cause performance of steps comprising:
receiving, by the first cellular telephone (mobile terminal) set from a first device (equipment) over a first wireless ( short-range wireless) network, an identifier ( equipment ID ) of the first device (fig.2,0023 wirelessly communicating an equipment identifier from an equipment to be controlled to a mobile communication terminal, 0047 transferred by respective short-range wireless devices, such as e.g. Bluetooth technology devices, to the mobile phone terminal when these are within range of each other. In step 21); and
sending ( transmitting ) , by the first cellular telephone set to a first server over ( 0039, SIP server ) the Internet, using a second wireless network( Fig.1 GSM/UMTs, GSM and UMTS are both wireless cellular network technologies, ) that is different from the first wireless network, the received identifier ( equipment ID ) ( 0047 the mobile phone terminal transmits a set of information comprising its own Id and/or the mobile phone number, the received equipment Id, and, optionally, location information, and through steps 22, 23 and 24, the set of information is transferred to the home environment in order to identify the person and the equipment to be configured to the requirements of the user. According to [0039] The home environment 16 is a location where the user 1 keeps or stores her/his profiles according to e.g. GSM's Home Location Register (HLR). The home environment 16 includes an electronic memory means to hold or store the personal profiles, the memory means preferably being an electronic database (DB) system. In situations where the network is H.323 enabled, preferably an H.323 gatekeeper provides the services of the home environment 16. However, in a SIP enabled network, preferably a SIP server would perform these tasks),
Kailand’s par 0047 and fig. 1 also suggested the mobile phone terminal transmits a set of information comprising its own Id to the SIP server over the GSM/UMTs wireless network. The SIP server relates to many others equipment’s via the SIP network over the intent and the SIP server operates over IP-based networks (third network). The SIP device (equipment) operates on wireless network such as Bluetooth network.
wherein the first wireless (short-range wireless) network comprises, is based on, or uses, a Personal Area network (PAN) (0047 transferred by respective short-range wireless devices, such as e.g. Bluetooth devices, to the mobile phone terminal and Bluetooth is one of the most common wireless PAN technologies);
wherein the PAN comprises, is based on, or uses, Bluetooth or Ultra-Wideband (UWB) (0047 transferred by respective short-range wireless devices, such as e.g. Bluetooth technology devices, to the mobile phone terminal);
wherein the second wireless network comprises, is based on, or uses, a cellular network (0047 The mobile phone is connecting to the GSM, the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), i.e. a second wireless network, is a digital cellular technology for mobile telecommunication systems and the mobile phone technology (GSM, UMTS).
Kliland does not expressly show
wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises instructions which, when executed by one or more second hardware processors in a second cellular telephone device cause performance of steps comprising:
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from a server over the Internet using a third wireless network that is different from the first and second wireless network, the identifier [emphasis added].
However, Terada discloses wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium further comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more second hardware processors in a second cellular telephone device (fig. 2 second user terminal) cause performance of steps comprising:
receiving, by the second cellular telephone device from a server ( fig.9, management server) over from the user terminal, the identifier (Par 0019 an identifier transmitted from one of the user terminals and 0031 management server. Namely, the management server according to the invention includes receiving means for receiving an identifier transmitted from a user terminal, identifier storing means for storing the identifier, identifier sharing means for causing the stored identifier and an identifier to be returned to another user terminal to coincide with each other, guiding means for performing guidance for acquiring, on the basis of the identifier, information associated with the identifier, and transmitting means for transmitting the coincident identifier to another user terminal. Fig.9, 0026] The management server of the invention may also include identifier sharing means for causing identifiers of both user terminals to coincide with each other so that personal information having an identifier transmitted from one of the user terminals can be output to another of the user terminals).
Kliland and Terada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kliland to incorporate the teachings of Terada in and provide sharing of terminal identifier. Doing so would provide a remote terminal enables real-time collaboration, thereby improving the sharing common terminal definitions, avoiding duplicate setup of the terminals.
The combination does not explicitly disclose the second cellular telephone using the third wireless network to communicate with a server [emphasis added].
However, Lee discloses the second cellular telephone (The receiving terminal 620/150 ) is using the third wireless network (a third wireless access network 633 ) to communicate with a service (0064 the service handover management unit 120 )( fig.1 0064 the service handover management unit 120 may provide the first service handover controller 130 with the control signal which controls the service handovers of the transmitting terminal 110 to the receiving terminal 150 only when the service handovers are required to be performed using the information associated with the transmitting terminal 110 to the receiving terminal 150. l. And par 0129 The receiving terminal 620/150, and the third mobile communication network 643 comprise a third wireless access network 633 and [0134] The second service handover controller 652 controls the third mobile communication network 643 the receiving terminal 620 currently accesses, collects call connection information of the receiving terminal 620 and network information of the third wireless access network 633);
Kliland and Terada and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of internet communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kliland to incorporate the teachings of Terada and provide sharing the terminal identifier, including the teaching of Lee. Doing so would provide an end-to-end service handover based on information about another terminal, thereby improving terminals communication.
As per claim 2. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein when executed by one or more first hardware processors, further cause performance of steps comprising forming a communication path from the first device, via the first cellular telephone device and the first server, to the second cellular telephone device (Lee, par 0076 the wireless access network which is connected to the transmitting termina, i.e. the first cellular telephone and the receiving terminal, i.e. the second cellular telephone, may be more than one, a connection route, i.e. path, between the transmitting terminal and the receiving terminal may vary).
As per claim 3. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the first device comprises a portable device (Kliland, fig 2. Equipment).
As per claim 4. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the first device and the first cellular telephone device are paired as a sender and a recipient( Terada, par 0038 Since the identifier sharing means for causing a transmitted identifier and an identifier to be transmitted to coincide with each other is provided in this manner, characters (information) associated with mutual identifiers( i.e. paired ) between user terminals which perform communication of data can be outputted to the respective terminals).
As per claim 6. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, Kliland’ s par 0033 discloses [0033] Now, referring to FIG. 1, an example situation is shown where a person has arrived at a location, where different equipment’s 6, 8 and 10 are located, and which equipment’s the person 1 (user) wants to personalize, meaning that the person wants to configure equipment at the location according to her/his personal needs, wishes or requirements. The equipment’s 6, 8 and 10, could be any controllable or configurable device, such as for instance a communication terminal) wherein the first and second cellular telephone devices are located at geographically disparate locations (Lee [0129] The transmitting terminal 610 (different places) communicates with the receiving terminal 620 (different places), which has accessed to a third mobile communication network 643, different area, via a first mobile communication network 641. The transmitting terminal 610 and the first mobile communication network 641 comprise a first wireless access network 631, and the transmitting terminal 610 and a second mobile network 642 comprise a second wireless access network 632. The receiving terminal 620 and the third mobile communication network 643 comprise a third wireless access network 633, and the receiving terminal 620 and a fourth mobile communication network 644 comprise a fourth wireless access network 634 and Terada, [0016] a communication information sharing method, and a communication information sharing program all of which enable a remote, i.e. located at geographically disparate locations, communication terminal to be easily and quickly identified and Terada, [0023] However, by storing the identifiers indicative of the specifications in the identifier storing means in this manner, it is also possible to determine whether a remote (it can be seen as different cities, states, and countries, continents,) terminal can output information.)
As per claim 7. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the first and second cellular telephone devices are located in different cities, in different states, in different countries, or on different continents ( Lee, [0132] The transmitting terminal 610 may access to the first and second mobile communication networks 641 and 642 to communicate, and the receiving terminal 620 may access to the third and fourth mobile communication networks 643 and 644 to communicate and Terada, [0023] However, by storing the identifiers indicative of the specifications in the identifier storing means in this manner, it is also possible to determine whether a remote( can be seen as different cities, states, and countries, continents,) terminal can output information ).
As per claim 8. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the first and second cellular telephone devices are located at a same geographical location, wherein the first and second cellular telephone devices are located at a same geographical location (Terada, [0023] However, by storing the identifiers indicative of the specifications in the identifier storing means in this manner, it is also possible to determine whether a remote( can be seen as different cities, states, and countries, continents,) terminal can output information ).
As per claim 9. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 8, Hind discloses wherein the first and second cellular telephone devices are located in a same city, in a same state, or in a same country ( Terada, [0023] However, by storing the identifiers indicative of the specifications in the identifier storing means in this manner, it is also possible to determine whether a remote( can be seen as different cities, states, and countries, continents,) terminal can output information and 0054 provide a communication information sharing system, a communication information sharing method, and a communication information sharing program all of which enable a remote communication terminal to be easily and quickly identified).
As per claim 10. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein each of the second and third wireless network comprises, is based on, or uses, a respective cellular network (Lee fig.1, 0018 a terminal capable of communicating using the plurality of wireless access networks and of generating a control signal which controls the service handovers based on information comprising call connection information of the terminal, first network information of a first wireless access network the terminal currently accesses, and second network information of a second wireless network the terminal will access. And 0048 the receiving terminal 150 may receive the speech telecommunication or the video telecommunication via a third mobile communication network included in a third wireless access network, and may receive the speech telecommunication or the video telecommunication via a fourth mobile communication network included in a fourth mobile access network), that is different from the first cellular telephone device ( Kliland, mobile communication terminal, received the ID of the equipment as shown in the Fig. 2).
As per claim 11. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the second wireless network comprises, is based on, or uses, the cellular network, and the third wireless network comprises a Local Area Network (LAN), or wherein the third wireless network comprises, is based on, or uses, the cellular network, and the second wireless network comprises a Local Area Network (LAN) (Lee 0005] A function of an Internet Protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) is to provide a new service in Internet Protocol (IP) based wireless access network environments. The IP based wireless access network environments may include a wireless LAN (WLAN), a wireless broadband (WiBro), a world interoperability for microwave access (WiMax), and a wideband code division multiple access (WCDMA).).
As per claim 12. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the first device is integrated or co-located with a router, a NAT-enabled computer, or a gateway ( Kliland, 0023 wirelessly communicating equipment ID to a mobile communication terminal, wirelessly communicating an equipment identifier from an equipment to be controlled to a mobile communication terminal, forwarding from said mobile communication terminal, via a gateway to an IP network, a first information set including said user identifier and equipment identifier and/or a mobile terminal identifier to a User Agent (UA) in an Internet Protocol network).
As per claim 13. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the first device is integrated or co-located with a security device (Kliland, fig.1, par 0047 the equipment is integrated with the mobile devices can be considered security devices).
As per claim 15. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, where the first server comprises, is part of, or is integrated with, a web server, a database server, a mail server, an FTP server, a DHCP server, a DNS server, or any combination thereof (Terada, fig.1, numeral 5, [0026] The management server of the invention may also include identifier sharing means for causing identifiers of both user terminals to coincide with each other so that personal information having an identifier transmitted from one of the user terminals can be outputted at another of the user terminals. This personal information is preferably information relative to a schedule or information relative to an address).
As per claim 18. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the first server is identified in the Internet using a first IP address, wherein the first IP address is stored in the first cellular telephone device, and wherein the sending, by the first cellular telephone device to the first server over the Internet uses the stored first IP address ( Kliland, 0013 : an equipment ID provided with a first wireless communication device having a first identifier, controllable equipment automatically responsive to a user profile and provided with and connected to a second wireless communication device having a second identifier, a mobile communication terminal adapted to communicate by an Internet Protocol (IP) network, said mobile communication terminal being provided with and connected to a third wireless communication device having a third identifier, and a user profile server connected to said IP network and holding the predetermined user profile, wherein said first, second and third wireless communication devices are adapted to communicate with one another, said first wireless communication device is adapted to communicate to said second wireless communication device, when in-range, the first identifier, said second wireless communication device is adapted to communicate to said third wireless communication device [0053] Without a mobile telephone terminal, the location info is in the case illustrated by FIG. 3, not as easily transferred as in the case illustrated by FIG. 2 using a mobile phone. , the arrangement includes that said user profile server is enabled to communicate, via said IP network and said mobile communication terminal).
As per claim 19. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the cellular network comprises, is based on, or uses, Global System for Mobile communication (GSM), 2 G, 2.5 G, 3 G, 3.5 G, Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE), or any combination thereof (Kliland, [0039] The home environment 16 is a location where the user 1 keeps or stores her/his profiles according to e.g. GSM 's,i.e. Global System for Mobile communication (GSM), Home Location Register (HLR). The home environment 16 includes an electronic memory means to hold or store the personal profiles, the memory means preferably being an electronic database (DB) system. In situations where the network is H.323 enabled, preferably an H.323 gatekeeper provides the services of the home environment 16. However, in a SIP enabled network, preferably a SIP server would perform these tasks. And 0047 that the mobile phone terminal in this situation can be based on any known or coming mobile phone technology (GSM, UMTS etc.) that is capable of communicating with a network and having an interface adapted to forward electronically to a short-range wireless device and 0048 FIG. 1 also comprises a gateway (GW) function 11, 12 between the Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) and the H.323 network. For security purposes, GSM information is for example encrypted to maintain the security within the PLMN network, while the H.323 network can by inherent functions provide corresponding security connections).
As per claim 20. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises a telephone number, a Mobile Equipment Identifier (MEID) number, an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, or an Electronic Serial Number (ESN) ( Kliland, 0026 mobile terminal is a mobile telephone, and said mobile terminal identifier includes a telephone number of said mobile telephone and fig.1, step 22, discloses mobile number can be seen the identifier of mobile terminal and 0013 mobile Identity /equipment ID, provided with a first wireless communication device having a first identifier, controllable equipment automatically responsive to a user profile and provided with and connected to a second wireless communication device having a second identifier, a mobile communication terminal i.e. the mobile communication terminal can include both an IP address and a MAC address).
As per claim 21. Kliland and Terada and Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises a first Medium Access Control (MAC), or a first Internet Protocol (IP) address that identifies the first device in the Internet(Kliland, 0013 fig.2, mobile 2 ID and equipment ID provided with a first wireless communication device having a first identifier, controllable equipment automatically responsive to a user profile and provided with and connected to a second wireless communication device having a second identifier, a mobile communication terminal i.e. the mobile communication terminal can include both an IP address and a MAC address, adapted to communicate by an Internet Protocol (IP) network, said mobile communication terminal being provided with and connected to a third wireless communication device having a third identifier ).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee in view of Gits et al US 2007/0243880.
As per claim 5. Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, Kliland fails to disclose wherein when executed by one or more first hardware processors, further cause performance of steps comprising displaying, by a screen in the second cellular telephone device, an information in response to the received identifier.
However, Gits discloses wherein when executed by one or more first hardware processors, further cause performance of steps comprising displaying, by a screen in the second cellular telephone device, an information in response to the received identifier(abstract, 0029,The system may include a second mobile device associated with the at least one recipient and including a receiver to receive the location data from the first mobile device, and a display to display the location data and the zone identifier on the second mobile device and 0037 the memory 216 stores a predefined label associated with each identifier of the plurality of zones 204.1 to 204.5, so that the location data can include the predefined label associated with the zone that the mobile device 202 is within. In an example embodiment, memory 216 stores a predefined surrounding boundary, so that if the mobile device traverses the boundary, the at least one recipient can be notified. The object positioning system 206 may determine the location of the mobile device 202, with the location data compiler 208 then sending location data to the remote device 212 of at least one predefined recipient at predefined intervals);
Kliland and Terada and Lee and Gits are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cellular communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kliland and Terada and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Gits and graphical user interface (GUI) provided on a mobile device to displaying the first mobile device information. Doing so would authenticate the associated devices, thereby improving authenticity of the other devices communicating with in the cellular communication.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee in view of Crosbie US 2002/0035699.
As per claim 14. Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the security device is a firewall,
However, Crosbie discloses wherein the security device is a firewall (0028 he networked system 20 includes one or more base stations or LAP's (LAN access points) 24 that provide access to a WLAN, mobile devices 28 (e.g., 28-1, 28-2, and 28-3), home database 32, firewall 34).
Kliland and Terada and Lee and Crosbie are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kliland and Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Crosbie and provide protection by the firewall. Doing so would provide safety for the internal network, thereby defending outside threats.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee in view of in view of Elg et al US 2003/0046428.
As per claim 16. Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, Kliland wherein the first device ( fig.1 equipment , is established a Bluetooth connection with the mobile 2), but Kliland fails to disclose comprises a laptop is (fig. 1, 0006/0015 interconnect a laptop computer and a mobile phone configured to the Bluetooth network, and then establish a connection between the mobile phone and the IP network and 0015 network 12 further includes a laptop computer 14 which is disposed to communicate with mobile phone 10, another laptop computer 16 and the access point of a local area network (LAN) 18 ).
Kliland and Terada and Lee and Elg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cellular communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kliland and Terada and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Elg and provide useful to interconnect a laptop computer and a mobile phone configured to the Bluetooth network.
Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee in view of in view of Adams et al US 2006/0190724.
As per claim 17. Kliland in view of Terada in view of Lee discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, Kliland discloses wherein when executed by one or more first hardware processors ( 0048 FIG. 1 by equipment’s, i.e. first device, 6, 8 and 10, included in an arrangement employing the invention, are each in communication with a corresponding a wireless device, such as e.g. a Bluetooth technology device, 5, 7 and 9, respectively. The arrangement shown by the example of FIG. 1 also comprises a gateway (GW) function 11, 12 between the Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) and the H.323 network. For security purposes, GSM information is for example encrypted so as to maintain the security within the PLMN network, while the H.323 network can by inherent functions provide corresponding security connections. ), further cause performance of steps comprising the first cellular telephone device, the received identifier ( par 0048 GSM information is for example encrypted so as to maintain the security within the PLMN network wherein the mobile terminal, that maintain GSM information that this also encrypted, thus the first cellular telephone would encrypted the any data inputted to the cellular telephone ) .
Kliland does not explicitly disclose received data is encrypting, by the first cellular telephone device [emphasis added].
However, Adams discloses encrypting, by the first cellular telephone device (0051 each data block is encrypted when received at the mobile device, a data item identifier or transformed version thereof such as a hash of the identifier, is preferably stored at the mobile device in the clear and used in step 80 to determine whether the received data, i.e. received ).
Kliland and Terada and Lee and Adams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cellular communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kliland and Terada and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Adams and provide encrypted communication by the mobile device. Doing so would provide protection for the information stored in the mobile device. Thereby would improve the data protection in the mobile device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU S SHOLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7314. The examiner can normally be reached EST: 9am-5pm.
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, JORGE ORTIZ CRIADO can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/ABU S SHOLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
