DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 2/18/26. Claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant states support can be found at instant specification [0034, 0051, 0052, 0056]. Therefore, Claims 1-17 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 2/18/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 6-7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because while the amendment does further the 101 argument, the claims are merely using a computer to perform high level data verification via high level data comparison.
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 2/18/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 for claim(s) 1-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 103 rejection(s) below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to distributing user data among participants of a meeting.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-8 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 9-17 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s): (emphasis added):
Claim 1: the method being performed by an authenticator device and the method comprising the steps of
receiving a signal based on a user action of a first user to enable distribution of the user data;
receiving a first set of attributes, comprising at least one attribute based on ambient characteristics of a real-world local environment at a location of a physical meeting captured by a first user device of the first user;
receiving a second set of attributes, comprising at least one attribute based on ambient characteristics of a real-world local environment at a location of a physical meeting captured by a second user device of a second user, wherein the second set of attributes are of the same type as the first set of attributes;
when the first set of attributes match the second set of attributes to indicate physical proximity between the first user device and the second user device at the location.
Claim(s) 9 and 17: same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with distributing user data among participants of a meeting, and
a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the invention is directed to distributing user data among participants of a meeting.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include one or authentication device, user devices (claim(s) 1, 9, 17) a processor; and a memory (claim(s) 9), computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer program code (claim(s) 17), camera, user device (claim(s) 3, 11), microphone, user device (claim(s) 4, 12), user device (claim(s) 7, 15), user devices (claim(s) 8, 16).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to (as additionally noted by instant specification [0074]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to (as additionally noted by instant specification [0074]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 9, 11, 13-16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saylor et al. (US 9,378,386 B1) in view of Palmer et al. (US 2015/0098631 A1) and Yachida et al. (US 2017/0351876 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 9, and 17 (Currently Amended), Saylor teaches a method for enabling distributing of user data among users of respective user device, the users, the method being performed by an authenticator device and the method comprising the steps of
{An authenticator device for enabling distributing of user data among users of respective user device, the users, the authenticator device comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the authenticator device to: - claim 9}
{A computer program product for enabling distributing of user data among users of respective user device, the users, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer program code which, when executed on a authenticator device causes the authenticator device to: - claim 17} [see at least Fig. 1 and [col 5 ln 5-25] “Functionally, the server 530 stores and manages content and conditions on the usage of the content. Additionally, the server 530 stores and manages credentials associated with users and uses these credentials to manage and verify the usage of specific content. The server 530 provides content to users, for example at one or more client devices 502, 504, enabling the users to perform operations on the content. In some instances, the content may be content that has been shared with a first user 503 by a second user 501 that is associated with the content, and the server 530 may provide the content to the first user based on the user being authorized to perform operations relating to the content.”;]:
receiving a signal based on a user action of a first user to enable distribution of the user data;
receiving a first set of attributes, comprising at least one attribute based on data of a first user device of the first user [for the limitations above, see at least Figs. 5A and 8 and [col 18-19 respectively ln 55-67 and 1-3, col 19 ln 4-20] receive a signal (request) with a first set of attributes (conditions required) to share a document “FIG. 8 illustrates an example process 800 for enabling a user to share a particular document with another user. … As shown, the system may receive a request to share a particular document (802). The request may be performed at a client device such as a client device 502 associated with a user 501 and may be received at a server 530. For example, a user 501 “John Smith” may request to share a particular document 554 “Meeting Notes” with another user 503 “Joe Boggs,” and may submit the request at a client device 502 associated with the user 501.
Additionally, when requesting to share a particular document, a user may identify one or more conditions to associate with usage of the shared document by the user with whom the document will be shared (804). Conditions may include one or more location-based, one or more temporal conditions, or one or more permission-based conditions. In practice, the one or more identified conditions may be received at the server 530 in the same way that the server 530 may receive the request to share the particular document at process step 802. For example, the user 501 “John Smith,” after requesting to share the document 554 “Meeting Notes” with another user 503 “Joe Boggs,” may additionally identify one or more location-based, temporal, or permission-based conditions to apply to the usage of the document by the user 503 “Joe Boggs.” ”;
Fig. 5A and [col 13-14 respectively ln 60-67 and 1-20] “For example, a user 501 “John Smith” having a client device 502 may request to share particular document 554 “Meeting Notes” with another user to enable the other user to perform operations relating to the particular document 554. To share the document with another user, the user 501 “John Smith” may access an interface 550 displayed at client device 502, where the interface may enable the user 501 to select the particular document that the user 501 would like to share. For example, the user 501 may be presented with a listing 552 of documents “Shared by Me” that includes documents 554, 556 that the user has or is sharing with other users. The user 501 may select a particular document 554 “Meeting Notes” from among the listing 552 and may additionally identify one or more users with whom to share the document 554.”];
receiving a second set of attributes, comprising at least one attribute based on data by a second user device of a second user, wherein the second set of attributes are of the same type as the first set of attributes;
enabling access to the user data for the user device of the second user when the first set of attributes match the second set of attributes to indicate data between the first user device and the second user device [for the limitations above, see at least [col 2 ln 5-45] “The documents may include one or more documents that have been shared with the user by one or more other users, one or more documents that the user has shared with other users, and/or one or more draft documents, for example, as shown by the options 106 illustrated in menu 100. … As illustrated in menu 100, the option “Shared with Me” is selected. Consequently, documents that have been shared with the user by other users are displayed in menu 100. In particular, the menu 100 includes document 108 “Meeting Notes” shared with the user by another user “John Smith” of “MicroStrategy Incorporated,” document 110 “Contract” shared with the user by another user “Jane Doe” of “MicroStrategy Incorporated,” and document 112 “Letter to Client” shared with the user by another user “John Smith” of “MicroStrategy Incorporated.” The documents 108, 110, and 112 may have conditions that limit the user's ability to open, edit, and share the documents 108, 110, and 112. The conditions may have been placed on the documents 108, 110, and 112 by the other users that shared the documents 108, 110, and 112 with the user.”;
[col 2-3 respectively ln 40-67 and 1-65] “The interface 200 may include a caption 202 identifying the interface, for example, by identifying the interface 200 as an interface to “Access ‘Meeting Notes’.” The interface 200 may also include a message 206 indicating that the user must satisfy one or more conditions before the user will be granted access to the document “Meeting Notes” 108. For example, the message 206 may recite “Accessing this document requires permission from the user JOHN SMITH.” … User selection of one of the options 208, 210 may enable the user to satisfy a particular requirement relating to performing operations on the document, for example, by providing a method of demonstrating permission by providing co-location to the user “John Smith” or demonstrating permission by providing information unique to “John Smith.” ”].
Saylor doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Palmer discloses
the users being participants of a physical meeting, [see at least Fig. 2 and [0026] “communication system 50, which can include electronic devices, such as electronic device 20. … switch 60 … server 62”;
[0004, 0008, 0050] physical meeting “For example, evidence of a person's situation can be used to monitor a person's attendance at a particular event or meeting. … For example, if a person is required to attend a counseling session, and the meeting is moved from its scheduled location to a temporary location, evidence that the person is at the scheduled geographic location is not the best evidence that the person was in the actual meeting, which occurred in the temporary location. … In one embodiment of the disclosure, detecting situation data can be implemented with a barcode scan, as illustrated at block 406. The barcode, which can be created uniquely for a particular situation (e.g., a meeting, a customer visit, or the like), can be posted in a location in the situation (e.g., in the meeting area) where it be scanned by people attending the situation (e.g., the meeting).”]:
receiving a first set of attributes, comprising at least one attribute based on characteristics of a real-world local environment at a location of a physical meeting captured by a first user device of the first user;
receiving a second set of attributes, comprising at least one attribute based on characteristics of a real-world local environment at a location of a physical meeting captured by a second user device of a second user, wherein the second set of attributes are of the same type as the first set of attributes;
when the first set of attributes match the second set of attributes to indicate physical proximity between the first user device and the second user device at the location [for the limitations above, see at least [0050-0052, 0057, 0061-0067] (0050) data from user device(s) in a meeting “In one embodiment of the disclosure, detecting situation data can be implemented with a barcode scan, as illustrated at block 406. The barcode, which can be created uniquely for a particular situation (e.g., a meeting, a customer visit, or the like), can be posted in a location in the situation (e.g., in the meeting area) where it be scanned by people attending the situation (e.g., the meeting). As depicted in an example shown in FIG. 5, barcode 502 can be prominently displayed on presentation board 504 in meeting 506. When a user scans a barcode that has been created for a meeting it can be evidence that the user was in a particular situation.”;
[0061, 0070-0072] data from user device(s) “After situation data has been detected, process 400 passes to block 412 wherein biometric data is detected. … Both situation data and biometric data can be compared to known baseline data, either in electronic device 20 or in a remote computer or server, such as server 62 in FIG. 2.”;
[0026] receive data from user devices “Additionally, electronic device 20 can be in a data communication session with server 62,”;
Fig. 5 and [0050] where Fig. 5 shows multiple users who are able to scan barcode thus the matching attributes indicate physical proximity].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saylor with Palmer to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Palmer. Doing so would further define Saylor’s (Saylor) [col 1 ln 1-20] improvement to user verification via increased verification methods that are more conclusive [see at least Palmer [0001-0010] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Saylor and b) Palmer and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Saylor in view of Palmer doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Yachida discloses
receiving a first set of attributes, comprising at least one attribute based on ambient characteristics of a real-world local environment at a location captured by a device;
receiving a second set of attributes, comprising at least one attribute based on ambient characteristics of a real-world local environment at a location captured by a device [for the limitations above, see at least [0052-0053] data including ambient data such as image and sound “The image capture device 10 captures images and stores captured images. The image includes any kinds of image including still pictures and movie images with or without other data such as sound data. The image capture device 10 is, for example, a digital still camera, a digital video camera or the like. Further, the image capture device 10 can be configured to capture images alone without storing the captured images, in which the image capture device 10 may be, for example, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a personal computer (PC), a game machine, a navigation device, a television conference terminal, an electronic information board, a multifunctional machine, and a projector.
The image capture device 10 acquires current time information from electromagnetic waves received from a satellite 51 such as a global positioning system (GPS), in which the number of the satellites may be changed. Further, the image capture device 10 generates position information by performing a position measurement process using the acquired electromagnetic waves, and set the time information and position information as the attribute information of the image data. Further, the image capture device 10 sets the attribute verification data used for generating the position information to the attribute information. Further, the position information providing service is not limited to the GPS, but Galileo, quasi-zenith satellite system or the like can be used. In the embodiment, the position information providing service other than the GPS can be used.”;
[0045] image data includes location “The attribute information means information that is associated to image data or an image capturing method. Further, the attribute information means information set to the image data. Specifically, the attribute information set to the image data includes, for example, an image capturing position and an image capturing location or place. The attribute information can further include other information such as information of an image capture device used for an image capturing operation, image capturing conditions, and an image capture person.”;
[0139-0140] receive data “FIG. 11 is an example of a flow chart illustrating the steps of verifying the attribute information by the verification apparatus 30. The sequence of FIG. 11 starts, for example, when the image information acquisition unit 31 acquires image information.
The verification information processing unit 41 of the image information reliability verification unit 34 extracts attribute information from the image information (step S10).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saylor in view of Palmer with Yachida to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Yachida. Doing so would further define Saylor in view of Palmer’s (Saylor) [col 1 ln 1-20] improvement to user verification via increased verification methods such as pre validating both image and video data [see at least Yachida [0003-0009, 0052] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Saylor in view of Palmer and b) Yachida and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3 and 11, modified Saylor teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first set of attributes.
Modified Saylor doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Palmer discloses
wherein the first set of attributes comprises at least one attribute based on an image captured by a camera of the first user device [see at least [0050-0052, 0057, 0061-0067] (0050) data from user device(s) in a meeting “In one embodiment of the disclosure, detecting situation data can be implemented with a barcode scan, as illustrated at block 406. The barcode, which can be created uniquely for a particular situation (e.g., a meeting, a customer visit, or the like), can be posted in a location in the situation (e.g., in the meeting area) where it be scanned by people attending the situation (e.g., the meeting). As depicted in an example shown in FIG. 5, barcode 502 can be prominently displayed on presentation board 504 in meeting 506. When a user scans a barcode that has been created for a meeting it can be evidence that the user was in a particular situation.”;
[0061, 0070-0072] data from user device(s) “After situation data has been detected, process 400 passes to block 412 wherein biometric data is detected. … Both situation data and biometric data can be compared to known baseline data, either in electronic device 20 or in a remote computer or server, such as server 62 in FIG. 2.”;
[0026] receive data from user devices “Additionally, electronic device 20 can be in a data communication session with server 62,”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Saylor with Palmer to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Palmer. Doing so would further define modified Saylor’s (Saylor) [col 1 ln 1-20] improvement to user verification via increased verification that are more conclusive [see at least Palmer [0001-0010] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Saylor and b) Palmer and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5 and 13, modified Saylor teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first set of attributes and the second set of attributes.
Modified Saylor doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Palmer discloses
wherein the first set of attributes and the second set of attributes have the same order of attribute types [see at least [0050-0052, 0057, 0061-0067] ([0050]) data from user device(s) in a meeting “In one embodiment of the disclosure, detecting situation data can be implemented with a barcode scan, as illustrated at block 406. The barcode, which can be created uniquely for a particular situation (e.g., a meeting, a customer visit, or the like), can be posted in a location in the situation (e.g., in the meeting area) where it be scanned by people attending the situation (e.g., the meeting). As depicted in an example shown in FIG. 5, barcode 502 can be prominently displayed on presentation board 504 in meeting 506. When a user scans a barcode that has been created for a meeting it can be evidence that the user was in a particular situation.”;
[0060] order of attributes “In some implementations of the disclosure, detecting situation data and biometric data can be executed simultaneously, or near simultaneously, by capturing images with the front and back cameras of a smart phone in response to a single input from the user, as shown in FIG. 6. This allows the user to capture highly probative evidence of a user being in a situation because, for example, a barcode uniquely displayed in a particular situation captured at the same moment with the user's face can provide convincing evidence that places the user in a particular situation. If data cannot be captured simultaneously, a time limit for capturing situation data and biometric data can be imposed. For example, once situation data is detected, a user may be required to capture biometric data within a 5 second time period.”;
[0061, 0070-0072] data from user device(s) “After situation data has been detected, process 400 passes to block 412 wherein biometric data is detected. … Both situation data and biometric data can be compared to known baseline data, either in electronic device 20 or in a remote computer or server, such as server 62 in FIG. 2.”;
[0026] receive data from user devices “Additionally, electronic device 20 can be in a data communication session with server 62,”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Saylor with Palmer to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Palmer. Doing so would further define modified Saylor’s (Saylor) [col 1 ln 1-20] improvement to user verification via increased verification methods that are more conclusive [see at least Palmer [0001-0010] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Saylor and b) Palmer and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6 and 14, modified Saylor teaches the method according to claim 1, as well as wherein the steps of receiving a first set of attributes, receiving a second set of attributes and enabling access to data.
Saylor teaches wherein the steps of receiving a first attributes, receiving a second set of attributes and enabling access to data are repeated regularly for revalidation [see at least [col 6 ln 40-60] “Additionally, in some instances, after the document has been provided to the requesting user the system 500 may continue to monitor whether the use of the document is in compliance with any conditions associated with the document. For example, if a document is associated with a permission-based or location-based condition, the system may continuously monitor a location of a client device associated with the requesting user and/or the location of a client device associated with the user that provided permission to the requesting user, to enable the system to determine whether the user is still in compliance with the conditions on the document while the user is performing the requested operations.”].
Regarding claim 7 and 15, modified Saylor’s teaches the method according to claim 1
and Saylor teaches wherein the steps of receiving a second set of attributes and enabling access to data is performed for a third user device of a third user [see at least [col 2 ln 5-45] “The documents may include one or more documents that have been shared with the user by one or more other users, one or more documents that the user has shared with other users, and/or one or more draft documents, for example, as shown by the options 106 illustrated in menu 100. … As illustrated in menu 100, the option “Shared with Me” is selected. Consequently, documents that have been shared with the user by other users are displayed in menu 100. In particular, the menu 100 includes document 108 “Meeting Notes” shared with the user by another user “John Smith” of “MicroStrategy Incorporated,” document 110 “Contract” shared with the user by another user “Jane Doe” of “MicroStrategy Incorporated,” and document 112 “Letter to Client” shared with the user by another user “John Smith” of “MicroStrategy Incorporated.” The documents 108, 110, and 112 may have conditions that limit the user's ability to open, edit, and share the documents 108, 110, and 112. The conditions may have been placed on the documents 108, 110, and 112 by the other users that shared the documents 108, 110, and 112 with the user.”;
[col 2-3 respectively ln 40-67 and 1-65] “The interface 200 may include a caption 202 identifying the interface, for example, by identifying the interface 200 as an interface to “Access ‘Meeting Notes’.” The interface 200 may also include a message 206 indicating that the user must satisfy one or more conditions before the user will be granted access to the document “Meeting Notes” 108. For example, the message 206 may recite “Accessing this document requires permission from the user JOHN SMITH.” … User selection of one of the options 208, 210 may enable the user to satisfy a particular requirement relating to performing operations on the document, for example, by providing a method of demonstrating permission by providing co-location to the user “John Smith” or demonstrating permission by providing information unique to “John Smith.” ”].
Regarding claim 8 and 16, modified Saylor teaches the method according to claim 7, as well as wherein the steps of receiving a first set of attributes, receiving a second set of attributes and enabling access to data.
Saylor teaches wherein the steps of receiving a first set of attributes, receiving a second set of attributes and enabling access to data are repeated [see at least [col 6 ln 40-60] “Additionally, in some instances, after the document has been provided to the requesting user the system 500 may continue to monitor whether the use of the document is in compliance with any conditions associated with the document. For example, if a document is associated with a permission-based or location-based condition, the system may continuously monitor a location of a client device associated with the requesting user and/or the location of a client device associated with the user that provided permission to the requesting user, to enable the system to determine whether the user is still in compliance with the conditions on the document while the user is performing the requested operations.”].
Modified Saylor teaches doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Palmer discloses
Original limitation: wherein the steps of receiving a first set of attributes, receiving a second set of attributes and enabling access to data are repeated when at least one of the first user device, the second user device and the third user device are determined to have left a registered location of the meeting;
Palmer teaches: wherein the steps of validation are repeated when at least one of the first user device, the second user device and the third user device are determined to have left a registered location of the meeting [see at least [0050-0052, 0057, 0061-0067] receive data from a user (similar to receiving steps of original limitation);
[0068] validate user based on data received from the user (similar to enable step of original limitation);
[0076] non limiting methods for revalidation of a user such as in response to user leaving the meeting room “If needed, further steps can be taken to increase the security and reliability of the disclosed method and apparatus to prevent users from “gaming” or deceiving the system. For example, after checking into the meeting, the user may be required to leave the smart phone on (e.g., in silent mode with vibrate on) with the app activated (e.g., running, perhaps in a background mode) during the meeting. Then, the user could periodically receive a text instructing the user to leave the meeting and go through another check-in using a separately located QR code (e.g., outside the room so as to limit disruption of the meeting). If the user was unable to check in again, it may be assumed that the user did not attend the whole meeting and therefore the user may not receive credit for attending that meeting. This lack of compliance could be documented for further scrutiny. This re-verification process is preferably required infrequently, and randomly, unless there are reasons to believe the system is being compromised. In other embodiments, the user could be required to scan out of the meeting when it is over, which can provide evidence that the user attended the entire duration of the meeting.”;
[0011] “The imaging unit 101 captures an image of an object located around the authentication device 100 .
The image capturing unit 101 is, for example, a camera that captures images using light at least in the visible light wavelength band.
The target is a tangible object that can be imaged by the imaging unit 101, such as a person (user) or an object.
The sound collection unit 102 is, for example, a microphone, and collects sound from around the authentication device 100.”
[0064] “The recognition unit 110 may recognize at least one of a motion, a sound, a posture, a shape, a pattern, a color, a temperature, and a humidity of the object as the state of the object.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Saylor with Palmer to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Palmer. Doing so would further define modified Saylor’s (Saylor) [0001-0006] improvement to user verification in conferences via increased verification methods that are more conclusive [see at least Palmer [0001-0010] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Saylor and b) Palmer and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saylor in view of Palmer and Yachida as applied to claim(s) 1 and 9 above and further in view of Kessler published September 2001 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 2 and 10, modified Saylor teaches the method according to claim 1, .
Saylor teaches wherein the step of enabling access to the user data comprises an action on the user data based on the first set of attributes [see at least [col 2-3 respectively ln 40-67 and 1-65] “The interface 200 may include a caption 202 identifying the interface, for example, by identifying the interface 200 as an interface to “Access ‘Meeting Notes’.” The interface 200 may also include a message 206 indicating that the user must satisfy one or more conditions before the user will be granted access to the document “Meeting Notes” 108. For example, the message 206 may recite “Accessing this document requires permission from the user JOHN SMITH.” … User selection of one of the options 208, 210 may enable the user to satisfy a particular requirement relating to performing operations on the document, for example, by providing a method of demonstrating permission by providing co-location to the user “John Smith” or demonstrating permission by providing information unique to “John Smith.” ”;
Fig. 7 and [col 18 ln 25-67] where item 722 in Fig. 7 notes access granted involves two steps “Authorize and Provide Access to Content” and the citation “For example, the processing system may evaluate the one or more conditions (722), may determine that the one or more conditions are satisfied, and based on determining that the one or more conditions are satisfied may output one or more messages to client device 702.”].
Modified Saylor doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Kessler discloses
wherein the step of enabling access to the user data comprises encrypting the user data based on the first set of attributes [the limitation is interpreted based on broadest reasonable interpretation of instant specification [0064] “The enabling access to the user data can be based on an encryption of the user data based on the first set of attributes.”,
see at least [pg 1-2] “Steganography is the science of hiding information. Whereas the goal of cryptography is to make data unreadable by a third party, the goal of steganography is to hide the data from a third party. In this article, I will discuss what steganography is, what purposes it serves, and will provide an example using available software.
…
Steganography today, however, is significantly more sophisticated than the examples above suggest, allowing a user to hide large amounts of information within image and audio files. These forms of steganography often are used in conjunction with cryptography so that the information is doubly protected; first it is encrypted and then hidden so that an adversary has to first find the information (an often difficult task in and of itself) and then decrypt it.
…
STEGANOGRAPHIC METHODS
The following formula provides a very generic description of the pieces of the steganographic process:
cover_medium + hidden_data + stego_key = stego_medium
In this context, the cover_medium is the file in which we will hide the hidden_data, which may also be encrypted using the stego_key. The resultant file is the stego_medium (which will, of course. be the same type of file as the cover_medium). The cover_medium (and, thus, the stego_medium) are typically image or audio files. In this article, I will focus on image files and will, therefore, refer to the cover_image and stego_image.
…
But what files would you analyze? Suppose I decide to post a hidden message by hiding it in an image file that I post at an auction site on the Internet. The item I am auctioning is real so a lot of people may access the site and download the file; only a few people know that the image has special information that only they can read.
…
Once the image file has been received, the user merely drags the file to S-Tools and right-clicks over the image, specifying the Reveal option. A dialog box will pop up requesting the passphrase. Figure 3 shows the information about the hidden archive file, and allows the user to open the file.”;
[pg 2, 4] “A STEGANOGRAPHY EXAMPLE
There are a number of software packages that perform steganography on just about any software platform; readers are referred to Neil Johnson's list of steganography tools at http://www.jjtc.com/Steganography/toolmatrix.htm. Some of the better known packages for Windows NT and Windows 2000 systems include:
…
S-Tools
…
Once the image file has been received, the user merely drags the file to S-Tools and right-clicks over the image, specifying the Reveal option. A dialog box will pop up requesting the passphrase. Figure 3 shows the information about the hidden archive file, and allows the user to open the file.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Saylor with Kessler to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Kessler. Doing so would further define modified Saylor’s (Saylor) [col 1 ln 1-20] improvement to user verification via further explaining the reasons for the verification such as access to encrypted data [see at least Kessler [pg 1-2, 4] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Saylor and b) Kessler and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saylor in view of Palmer and Yachida as applied to claim(s) 1 and 9 above and further in view of Tanaka (JP 2014164373 A).
Regarding claim 4 and 12, modified Saylor teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first set of attributes.
Modified Saylor doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Palmer discloses
wherein the first set of attributes comprises at least one attribute based on data captured by the first user device [see at least [0050-0052, 0057, 0061-0067] (0050) data from user device(s) in a meeting “In one embodiment of the disclosure, detecting situation data can be implemented with a barcode scan, as illustrated at block 406. The barcode, which can be created uniquely for a particular situation (e.g., a meeting, a customer visit, or the like), can be posted in a location in the situation (e.g., in the meeting area) where it be scanned by people attending the situation (e.g., the meeting). As depicted in an example shown in FIG. 5, barcode 502 can be prominently displayed on presentation board 504 in meeting 506. When a user scans a barcode that has been created for a meeting it can be evidence that the user was in a particular situation.”;
[0061, 0070-0072] data from user device(s) “After situation data has been detected, process 400 passes to block 412 wherein biometric data is detected. … Both situation data and biometric data can be compared to known baseline data, either in electronic device 20 or in a remote computer or server, such as server 62 in FIG. 2.”;
[0026] receive data from user devices “Additionally, electronic device 20 can be in a data communication session with server 62,”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Saylor with Palmer to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Palmer. Doing so would further define modified Saylor’s (Saylor) [col 1 ln 1-20] improvement to user verification via increased verification methods that are more conclusive [see at least Palmer [0001-0010] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Saylor and b) Palmer and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Modified Saylor doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Tanaka discloses
wherein the first set of attributes comprises at least one attribute based on sounds captured by a microphone of the device [see at least [0010] authentication device is analogous to user device of Saylor “The authentication device 100 includes an imaging unit 101 , a sound collection unit 102 , a recognition unit 110 , a storage unit 120 , an authentication unit 130 , a control unit 140 , an output unit 150 , an irradiation unit 153 , and a registration unit 160.”
[0011] “The imaging unit 101 captures an image of an object located around the authentication device 100 .
The image capturing unit 101 is, for example, a camera that captures images using light at least in the visible light wavelength band.
The target is a tangible object that can be imaged by the imaging unit 101, such as a person (user) or an object.
The sound collection unit 102 is, for example, a microphone, and collects sound from around the authentication device 100.”
[0064] “The recognition unit 110 may recognize at least one of a motion, a sound, a posture, a shape, a pattern, a color, a temperature, and a humidity of the object as the state of the object.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Saylor with Tanaka to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Tanaka. Doing so would further define modified Saylor’s (Saylor) [col 1 ln 1-20] improvement to user verification via increased verification methods that are convenient and secure [see at least Tanaka [0001-0005] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Saylor and b) Tanaka and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights