DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amended claims 1-2, 4, and 7-21 as submitted on 12/18/25 were examined. Any new objections and/or rejections made below were necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 12/18/25 was considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the movement of content from one location to another as taught by LeCour is not the same as not modification of content. Applicant provides definition of “modification” as understood in computer science and as defined by the Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary (see p7 of remarks submitted on 12/18/25). In both cases, applicant states that the operative action in each of the definitions include “change” and “changing”. Applicant further states that the specification is clear that “modify” denotes the act of changing the data and not merely moving it from one location to another as disclosed by LeCour.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Applicant admits that LeCour discloses moving content from one location to another. It is submitted that the location of an object or data is a context of the data and by changing the location of the object/data, the context of the object/data is changed, thus the data is also changed/modified. Further, one should also consider how an object or data is “moved” in a computing environment. In “moving” an object/data, the object/data is first copied to the new location and then the original object/data is deleted. The copy and deletion of the original object/data are modification of the object/data. Just deleting the original object/data alone is making it so the original data no longer exists in the original location, which is a change to the original object/data. Further, regardless of the examples provided in the specification of how data is “modified”, the language of the claim does not prohibit other types of modification of the data to be applicable to the scope of what is being claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Note also that upon performing an updated search for the amended claims that the following reference was found: Glazberg et al (US 2020/0388056). While the reference itself is not utilized in an art rejection below to avoid making redundant rejections since LeCour alone is still applicable to the amended independent claims (as discussed above), Glazberg is being brought to applicant’s attention because the reference teaches an AR glasses system which prevents modifying of objects/data captured by its camera system (see paragraphs 21, 36, 50, and 54) for privacy reasons. The type of modification prohibited by Glazberg seems closer to the type of modification that applicant is arguing LeCour does not teach. Again, note that as claimed the type of modification LeCour teaches is not prohibited from the scope of the claim language even though it is not the type of modification applicant may have intended. At the very least, it would be reasonable to incorporate Glazberg into LeCour’s invention to make rejections under 35 USC 103 where the type of modification prohibited (as intended by applicant’s arguments) would be addressed by Glazberg’s additional teachings. This is something to keep in mind for future amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by LeCour (US 2019/0180049).
Claim 1 and 13:
As per claim 1, LeCour discloses:
Operating a sensor to capture data input (paragraphs 51-52 and 64; The claimed sensor corresponds to the different types of cameras and other input sensors disclosed in the cited paragraphs, which are used to capture images, videos, and voice data).
Individuating an element of the data input (paragraphs 66 and 85; Content is classified, including analyzing content to determine if certain secondary data is present in the content, such as various confidential personal identifying information, i.e. account identifier, phone numbers, etc.).
Tagging an individuated element with metadata (paragraph 96-98; Content classifiers assign a “matching score”, i.e. metadata, to the content being analyzed to determine if a content is of a certain type or not).
Matching the metadata with an associated permission set (paragraph 98; Matching, in this case, is interpreted to mean the assignment of a security or severity level to the content in response to the “matching score” obtained).
Applying a restricting function defined in the associated permission set to the individuated element, where the restricting function is to prevent access to the individuated element by an unauthorized application during a process flow to produce augmented reality output data (paragraphs 64, 74, and 98; Note, as per paragraph 64, the computing device could be a set of Google Glass, which produces augmented reality output data. As per paragraph 98, depending on the type of content detected and the security/severity level assigned to the content based on the content type, the content could be blocked from being outputted, i.e. outputted to the display of a Google Glass, or some other set of action may be applied to the content. Any of the set of actions corresponds to the claimed restriction function as they prevent access to an unauthorized application during a process flow to produce augmented reality output data. Note also that the term “process flow” is mentioned just once in applicant’s specification, i.e. paragraph 8 of the specification. The term was not defined, thus as best determined from context, could broadly, but reasonably refer to the execution/flow of one or more tasks/software/process. Thus the “duration of process flow” is a flexible and unspecified duration where one or more processes are being executed);
wherein the restricting function is applied in response to the unauthorized application attempting to access the individuated element during processing and in response to the unauthorized application’s attempt to modify the individuated element during processing (paragraphs 74 and 98; Blocking access or restricting exfiltration of the content, including doing so by application 210. Note that in paragraph 74, modification of content can be attempted by application 210 by transferring the content to I/O devices. Transfer/movement of content is a type of modification of content/individuated elements as it changes the context/location of the content. Further, in a computer, content/data is transferred/moved by making a copy of the content in the new location and then deleting the old content. This too is a type of modification of the content.), wherein the restricting function is applied by restricting types of modification allowed (paragraphs 74 and 98; Exfiltration is the unauthorized removal of data, which means data is modified during removal. Since exfiltration is restricted, modification of the content/individuated element is restricted by types of modification associated with exfiltration).
The rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 13.
Claim 2:
LeCour further discloses the restricting function comprising at least one of a security function, a privacy protection function, an access security function, a modification restriction function, and an obfuscation function (paragraph 98; Cited paragraph discloses several restriction functions such as displaying a warning, blocking access of the content by the application, etc.).
Claim 4:
LeCour further discloses wherein applying the restricting function when the unauthorized application attempts to access the individuated element comprises applying an access security function (paragraph 98; Blocking access or restricting exfiltration of the content).
Claim 7:
LeCour further discloses applying the restricting function when the unauthorized application attempts to render the augmented reality output data (paragraphs 64 and 98; As per paragraph 98, restriction of data by an application could include blocking the content from being outputting to the I/O of the device. As per paragraph 64, the device could be a Google Glass set, where the out device is an AR display).
Claim 8:
LeCour further discloses applying the restricting function when the unauthorized application attempts to render the augmented reality output data comprises obscuring personally-identifiable information of the individuated element (paragraphs 64, 84, 98, 106, and 118; Blocking the content from being displayed on Google Glass AR display, where content can include PII such as social security numbers, account identifier, etc., is considered obscuring PII as the PII is kept from being seen, i.e. obscuring).
Claim 9:
LeCour further discloses wherein obscuring personally- identifiable information of the individuated element comprises obscuring a personally-identifiable visual representation (64, 84, 98, 106, and 118; If the PII is blocked from access by an application to be outputted to the I/O of a device, i.e. Google Glass, this means that it’s also blocked/obscured from visual representation).
Claim 10:
LeCour further discloses wherein obscuring personally- identifiable information of the individuated element comprises obscuring a personally-identifiable electromagnetic emission (64, 84, 98, 106, and 118; If the PII is blocked from access by an application to be outputted to the I/O of a device, i.e. Google Glass, this means that the electromagnetic emissions needed to represent the PII is also blocked/obscured).
Claim 11:
LeCour further discloses wherein applying the restricting function when the unauthorized application attempts to render the augmented reality output data comprises blocking rendering of undesired distracting entities (paragraph 98; Any unauthorized content that is blocked for one reason or another can be considered undesired distracting entities).
Claim 14:
LeCour further discloses wherein the device is an augmented reality device (paragraph 64; Google Glass).
Claim 15:
LeCour further discloses comprising the permission set (paragraph 98; Each content type is assigned security/severity levels).
Claim 16:
LeCour further discloses wherein the restricting function component comprises at least one of an input access control component; a data modification control component; and a data output rendering control component (paragraph 98; Content is blocked from access by application and restricting exfiltration of the content via I/O control).
Claim 20:
LeCour further discloses wherein the permission set comprises a data structure which associates permission data with the tag applied to the individuated element by the tagging component and with an application installed on, installable on, or executable on the device (paragraph 76 and 98).
Claim 21:
LeCour further discloses wherein at least one sensor comprises a camera (paragraph 51 and 64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeCour (US 2019/0180049) in view of Kong et al (US 10,127,403).
Claim 12:
LeCour does not disclose, but Kong discloses receiving a request to implement at least one application-specific restricting function, determining whether an incompatibility between the at least one application-specific restricting function and a permission set exists, and implementing or rejecting the at least one application-specific restricting function based on an outcome of the determination (col 43, line 63-col 44, line 49; Several restrictions are possible based on application or user settings. Because of this, incompatibility might exist and a user is allowed to review the privacy settings and adjust the various privacy settings, which would enter implement or reject various restriction functions based on the user’s determinations).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify LeCour’s invention in light of Kong’s teachings discussed above. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to do so as it would allow them to adjust security settings based on changing needs.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeCour (US 2019/0180049) in view of Barnett et al (US 2019/0171867).
Claim 17:
LeCour does not disclose, but Barnett discloses a model, and wherein the individuating component and tagging component are operable with the model to individuate and tag the individuated element (paragraphs 43-44 and 47-48; Machine learning tag objects).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify LeCour’s invention in light of Bennett’s teachings discussed above. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. mechanism for individuating and tagging as used by LeCour) for another (i.e. use of Bennett’s model for individuating and tagging) to achieve predicable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 18:
Barnett further discloses wherein the model is an inference model trained on a data set of elements that have been tagged with identifying metadata (paragraphs 43-44, 47-48, 68, and 71; Machine learning models are trained).
Claim 19:
Barnett further discloses wherein the model is an inference model developed using neural network techniques trained on a prepared and tagged dataset to provide a recognition of an element (paragraphs 43-44, 47-48, 68, and 71).
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 PONNOREAY PICH whose telephone number is (571)272-7962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST, 10am-6pm during Daylight Savings Time.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/PONNOREAY PICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495