Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This action is in response to communications filed on 03/02/2026, claim(s) 15-36 are amended per Applicant's request. Therefore, claims 15-36 are presently pending in the application and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to claims 15-36 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of 15-36 has been withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the applicants amendment to claim 23 the rejection has been withdrawn regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 introduces new text “comparing saved historical device-constellations associated with the individual and returning the confidence metric based on similarity between a current device constellation and one or more prior constellations” that is not underlined, even though the claim has been marked as “currently amended.” which is not compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(c). Applicant is reminded that all added text must be shown by underlining and all deleted text must be shown by strike-through. As such a substitute claim listing in compliance is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains 232 words. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
With regards to claims 15, 21, 22, 29, 30 and 36 the claim repeatedly recites the term “co-occurrence” (e.g. device-co-occurrence (claim 15), prior co-occurrence patterns (claim 21), and frequency of prior co-occurrence) however the term “co-occurrence” is completely absent. While the specification discloses physical “proximity to other data and objects”, a “pattern of exposure” and the “distance between devices” tracking co-occurrences in a dataset is a distinct data-mining concept that was not originally described. As such, the claims appear to contain new matter and the specification is objected to for not providing antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
With regards to claims 15, 21, 22, 29, 30 and 36 the claim repeatedly recites the term “historical” (e.g. historical device-identifier data (claim 15), historical proximity relationships (claim 24), and historical device constellations (claim 18)) however the term “historical” is completely absent. While the specification generally discloses the use of “history” in a single instance, prefetching “IoT and biometric history”, and discusses “patterns of behavior” the specification fails to place the modifier historical on these specific items described above which creates new and distinct data structures not previously described. As such, the claims appear to contain new matter and the specification is objected to for not providing antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
With regards to claims 15, 18, 21-24, 27, 30, 33, and 36 the claim repeatedly recites the term “constellation” (e.g. constellation of the plurality of IoT Devices (claim 15), historical device-constellations (claim 18), device constellation feature set (claim 22), device constellation (claim 30), any claim not directly mentioned recites one of the previous recitations of constellation) however the term “constellation” is completely absent. While the specification discloses forming a “unique combination of devices”, an “interconnectedness fabric” and aa “map of interconnected devices” the term “constellation” implies a specific spatial or network topology that was never originally disclosed. As such, the claims appear to contain new matter and the specification is objected to for not providing antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
With regards to claims 15 and 35 the features directed towards “communication signatures” does not appear to adequately be supported by the specification. While the specification discloses “communication patterns” and “device signatures” or “biometric signatures” the specification never discloses a “communication signature” which appears to be distinct and/or may comprise something that is completely different. As such, the claims appear to contain new matter and the specification is objected to for not providing antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
With regards to claim 22 the features directed towards “device-constellation feature set comprising: (i) a number of IoT devices currently detected, (ii) a frequency of prior co-occurrence among the detected IoT devices, (iii) counts of prior detections of individual IoT devices, and (iv) proximity relationships among the IoT devices, and outputting the confidence metric based at least in part on the device-constellation feature set” does not appear to adequately be supported by the specification. While the specification discloses that the “number of devices and the number of hits on each device are preferably totaled...parsed by a learning neural net” and discloses in other locations “distance between devices” it fails to group these four highly specific and different data points into a unified “feature set” that is fed into a neural network. Furthermore, the specification fails to discloses a “device-constellation feature set”. As such, the claims appear to contain new matter and the specification is objected to for not providing antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
With regards to claims 23 the features directed towards “the learning neural network updates weighting of the device-constellation feature set based on prior authentication outcomes for the individual” does not appear to adequately be supported by the specification. The specification is completely silent regarding the term “weighting” or “weights”. While the specification generally describe a platform that “evolves with the user”, “teaches itself” and “regularly retrains its knowledge base “it only broadly describes the AI having the capability to learn or retrain. The specification fails to provide the high specific algorithmic mechanism of “updating weighing” for an IoT-based feature set. As such, the claims appear to contain new matter and the specification is objected to for not providing antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed in the above specification objection must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15, 18, 21-24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35 and 36 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has not pointed out where the new and amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitations in the application as filed (see above objection to the specification).
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the plurality of IoT Devices” in step (c) lacks an antecedent basis as step (a) only states “IoT Devices.”
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM CST.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights