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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 August 2025 has been entered.
Examiner Notes
This Application will be examined with respect to Superguide v. DirecTV (MPEP 2111.01 i.e. “at least one of A, B, or C” )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-28, 30-41, 46 and 61-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US 20160259492 A1) in view of Carey (US 20120260346 A1) and further in view of Barreto Martins (US 20080008357 A1, herein now referred as Martins).
Claim 1. Le teaches an animal data compliance system comprising:
one or more sources of animal data from one or more targeted individuals participating in an athletic event, wherein the animal data is transmitted electronically
([0012] In embodiments, the method 100 can include application of a biosignal detector (e.g., electroencephalogram signal detector) including specific tangible components (e.g., biosignal sensors, motion sensors, processor, communications module, etc.) with specific structure (e.g., specific arrangements of sensors, structure adapted to electrically interface a body region of a user, etc.
[0017] athletes can record themselves participating in a sporting event,);
and a collecting computing device that gathers the animal data, the collecting computer device configured to provide animal data to a sports wagering system and/or a sports and an entertainment media system and/or a performance analytics system, the sports wagering system and/or the sports and the entertainment media system, and/or the performance analytics system configured to provide a third party with the animal data or its one or more derivatives wherein for the sports wagering system
([0032]types of rules can include:... [0036] Users preferably have a degree of control over the types of cognitive state data collected and/or generated, enabling users to establish rules in accordance with their personal privacy preferences. However, any suitable entity can create any suitable cognitive state data rule governing the aspects of the cognitive state data.
[0017][0043][0061] analytics performed on the data);
wherein: one or more rules related to at least a portion of the animal data that govern acquisition, distribution, and use of animal data are created or modified based upon one or more terms
(([0032][0033] Rule formats can include: preferences, selections, restrictions, software code, and/or any suitable rule type... Permission rules... a user can be given access to set rules regarding how their cognitive state data can be viewed on a user device
[0036] Users preferably have a degree of control over the types of cognitive state data collected and/or generated, enabling users to establish rules in accordance with their personal privacy preferences.).
the one or more rules are associated with the animal data
([0032] Rule formats can include: preferences, selections, restrictions, software code, and/or any suitable rule type... Permission rules...); and
the at least a portion of animal data and the one or more rules are provided to one or more receiving computing devices
([0033] For example, a user can be given access to set rules regarding how their cognitive state data can be viewed on a user device,);
and the one or more receiving computing devices including the sports wagering system and/or the sports and the entertainment media system and/or the performance analytics system
([0081] perform any suitable analytics at a fourth party web interface provided to the third party, at a fourth party app, and/or at any suitable component.).
Le further discloses the ability to use restrictions such as establishing rules related to privacy ([0036]) but does not specifically disclose
(1) the one or more terms being selected, established, created, modified, accepted, and/or agreed upon by the targeted individual from whom the animal data is derived from or their authorized representative, and (2) the one or more terms reflecting, at least in part, one or more preferences establishing one or more permissions, restrictions, rights, and/or conditions related to the acquisition, distribution and/or use of at least a portion of the animal data by one or more acquirers and/or receiving computing devices, the one or more preferences including terms related to what animal data can be accessed and at least one of: the volume of the animal data being accessed frequency of use, allowed use(s) of the animal data, duration and/or term of allowed use(s) of the animal data, transferability of access or rights to the animal data, geographic or contextual areas in which the animal data may be used, consideration required or provided to access the animal data, location and the manner in which the animal data is used, under what conditions the animal data is permitted to be used, who is permitted to access the animal data, what systems or devices may access the animal data, where the animal data may be accessed, where the animal data may be distributed, exclusivity related to access and/or use of the animal data, activity and/or event associated with what animal data can be accessed Volume of animal data accessed Source(s) of the animal data rights regarding creation or control of derivative works from animal data, ownership rights related to the animal data, anonymity, pseudonymity, and/or identifiability of the data, or other data to be associated with the animal data;
the one or more rules inform the one or more receiving computing devices of one or more permissions, restrictions, rights, and/or conditions permissions or restrictions related to the animal data;
the one or more receiving computing devices take at least one action based upon the one or more rules; and the one or more receiving computing devices including the sports wagering system and/or the sports and the entertainment media system and/or the performance analytics system.
However, Carey teaches (1) the one or more terms being selected, established, created, modified, accepted, and/or agreed upon by the targeted individual from whom the animal data is derived from or their authorized representative
([0114] The service provides the trainer a user interface through which to make this request and send it to Susan. The request for data contains a human-readable description of the data to be collected each week. Susan receives the request and approves it, but attaches an additional condition that only data collected between 7 am and 7 pm can be viewed.),
and (2) the one or more terms reflecting, at least in part, one or more preferences establishing one or more permissions, restrictions, rights, and/or conditions related to the acquisition, distribution and/or use of at least a portion of the animal data by one or more acquirers and/or receiving computing devices
([0117] The service generates a rule that allows the trainer access to this data. This rule may be based, for example, on some digital representation of the relationship between Susan and the trainer that is evaluated when the data package is accessed by the trainer. [0118] Further, the service generates a set of computations to associate with the data package that compute, for each workout, the elements that the trainer has requested.),
the one or more preferences including terms related to what animal data can be accessed and at least one of: the volume of the animal data being accessed frequency of use, allowed use(s) of the animal data, duration and/or term of allowed use(s) of the animal data
([0152] At some later time, in reviewing the use of her data in the service and the active authorizations, Susan realizes that the physician still has access to her information and chooses to disable this access, since the consultation has completed. The licenses that were issued to the physician are marked as invalid, the physician's software is notified of this fact, and no future licenses are created or sent to the physician under this authorization. In other embodiments, the license might expire automatically after a specified period of time.),
transferability of access or rights to the animal data
([0148][0149] The trainer, who works for an organization with doctors specializing in sports medicine on staff, would like to get some input from a staff physician, ... the trainer asks Susan if that would be acceptable, and she agrees. The trainer forwards the last month’s worth of Susan's data directly to the physician. The data packages and licenses are included…Susan approves it)
geographic or contextual areas in which the animal data may be used,
consideration required or provided to access the animal data,
location and the manner in which the animal data is used,
under what conditions the animal data is permitted to be used
([0114] but attaches an additional condition that only data collected between 7 am and 7 pm can be viewed.),
who is permitted to access the animal data
([0148], [0149] trainer, physician),
what systems or devices may access the animal data
([0149] The physician attempts to open the data to run the computations, and (since he is not yet authorized to access the data at all) is prompted by his software to request authorization from Susan. He does so, and an authorization request is sent to Susan, who approves it.),
where the animal data may be accessed
([0148], [0149] trainer, physician),
where the animal data may be distributed
([0148], [0149] trainer, physician),
exclusivity related to access and/or use of the animal data, activity and/or event associated with what animal data can be accessed Volume of animal data accessed Source(s) of the animal data rights regarding creation or control of derivative works from animal data, ownership rights related to the animal data, anonymity, pseudonymity, and/or identifiability of the data, or other data to be associated with the animal data;
the one or more rules inform the one or more receiving computing devices of one or more permissions, restrictions, rights, and/or conditions permissions or restrictions related to the animal data
([0152] At some later time, in reviewing the use of her data in the service and the active authorizations, Susan realizes that the physician still has access to her information and chooses to disable this access, since the consultation has completed. The licenses that were issued to the physician are marked as invalid, the physician's software is notified of this fact, and no future licenses are created or sent to the physician under this authorization. In other embodiments, the license might expire automatically after a specified period of time.); and
the one or more receiving computing devices take at least one action based upon the one or more rules
([0152] The licenses that were issued to the physician are marked as invalid, the physician's software is notified of this fact,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use (1) the one or more terms being selected, established, created, modified, accepted, and/or agreed upon by the targeted individual from whom the animal data is derived from or their authorized representative, and (2) the one or more terms reflecting, at least in part, one or more preferences establishing one or more permissions, restrictions, rights, and/or conditions related to the acquisition, distribution and/or use of at least a portion of the animal data by one or more acquirers and/or receiving computing devices, the one or more preferences as taught by Carey within the system of Le for the purpose of allowing a user to have full access and control of the type of data which can be distributed based on a scenario presented to the user.
Le and Carey further disclose the parties which can receive data but does not specifically disclose the third party includes a sports bettor.
However, Martins teaches the third party includes a sports bettor
([0012] Users such as trainers, owners, veterinarians or gamblers can then access the database, read the data and depending on their relationship with the animal use the data to control the training regimen of the animal.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the third party includes a sports bettor as taught by Martins within the system of Le for the purpose of allowing a sports bettor to evaluate performance of the athlete and strategizing from data analysis to adjust financial investments.
Claim 2. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the at least a subset of the one or more rules are attached to the animal data as metadata
(Carey [0129] Metadata that is used to establish what the data in the package represents (e.g. that it was Susan's data, the week during which it was collected, etc.). ).
Claim 3. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the animal data is human data
(Le [0024] bioelectrical signal sensors (e.g., EEG), motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes), magnetometers, audio sensors, video sensors, location sensors, and/or any suitable type of sensor. Sensors and/or other components of the receiver 320 can receive any size or combination of bioelectrical signal data (e.g., EEG data recorded over time and/or situations, etc.), motion data (e.g., motion along multiple axes, footsteps, facial movement, etc.), audio data (e.g., audio recordings from the user, from the user's environment, etc.), video data (e.g., video recordings by the user, of the user, etc.), physical status data (e.g., heart rate, galvanic skin response, etc.) and/or any suitable type of data.).
Claim 4. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the one or more sources of animal data includes one or more sensors
(Le [0024] bioelectrical signal sensors (e.g., EEG), motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes), magnetometers, audio sensors, video sensors, location sensors, and/or any suitable type of sensor. Sensors and/or other components of the receiver 320 can receive any size or combination of bioelectrical signal data (e.g., EEG data recorded over time and/or situations, etc.), motion data (e.g., motion along multiple axes, footsteps, facial movement, etc.), audio data (e.g., audio recordings from the user, from the user's environment, etc.), video data (e.g., video recordings by the user, of the user, etc.), physical status data (e.g., heart rate, galvanic skin response, etc.) and/or any suitable type of data.).
Claim 5. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 4 wherein the one or more sensors is a biosensor that gathers physiological, biometric, chemical, biomechanical, location, environmental, genetic, genomic, glycomic, or other biological data from one or more targeted individuals
(Le [0024] bioelectrical signal sensors (e.g., EEG), motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes), magnetometers, audio sensors, video sensors, location sensors, and/or any suitable type of sensor. Sensors and/or other components of the receiver 320 can receive any size or combination of bioelectrical signal data (e.g., EEG data recorded over time and/or situations, etc.), motion data (e.g., motion along multiple axes, footsteps, facial movement, etc.), audio data (e.g., audio recordings from the user, from the user's environment, etc.), video data (e.g., video recordings by the user, of the user, etc.), physical status data (e.g., heart rate, galvanic skin response, etc.) and/or any suitable type of data.).
Claim 6. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 5 wherein the one or more sensors gathers, or provides information that can be converted into, at least one of the following types of data: facial recognition data, eye tracking data, blood flow data, blood volume data, blood pressure data, biological fluid data, body composition data, biochemical data, pulse data, oxygenation data, core body temperature data, skin temperature data, galvanic skin response data, perspiration data, location data, positional data, audio data, biomechanical data, hydration data, heart-based data, neurological data, genetic data, genomic data, skeletal data, muscle data, respiratory data, kinesthetic data, ambient temperature data, humidity data, barometric pressure data, or elevation data
(Le [0024] bioelectrical signal sensors (e.g., EEG), motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes), magnetometers, audio sensors, video sensors, location sensors, and/or any suitable type of sensor. Sensors and/or other components of the receiver 320 can receive any size or combination of bioelectrical signal data (e.g., EEG data recorded over time and/or situations, etc.), motion data (e.g., motion along multiple axes, footsteps, facial movement, etc.), audio data (e.g., audio recordings from the user, from the user's environment, etc.), video data (e.g., video recordings by the user, of the user, etc.), physical status data (e.g., heart rate, galvanic skin response, etc.) and/or any suitable type of data.).
Claim 7. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system in claim 4 wherein the one or more sensors are affixed to, are in contact with, or send one or more electronic communications in relation to or derived from, one or more targeted subjects including a targeted subjects’ body, eyeball, vital organ, muscle, hair, veins, biological fluid, blood vessels, tissue, or skeletal system, embedded in the one or more targeted individuals, lodged or implanted in one or more targeted individuals, ingested by the one or more targeted individuals, integrated to include at least a subset of the one or more targeted individuals, or integrated into or as part of, affixed to, or embedded within, a fabric, textile, cloth, material, fixture, object, or apparatus that contacts or is in communication with one or more targeted individuals, either directly or via one or more intermediaries
(Le [0024] bioelectrical signal sensors (e.g., EEG), motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes), magnetometers, audio sensors, video sensors, location sensors, and/or any suitable type of sensor. Sensors and/or other components of the receiver 320 can receive any size or combination of bioelectrical signal data (e.g., EEG data recorded over time and/or situations, etc.), motion data (e.g., motion along multiple axes, footsteps, facial movement, etc.), audio data (e.g., audio recordings from the user, from the user's environment, etc.), video data (e.g., video recordings by the user, of the user, etc.), physical status data (e.g., heart rate, galvanic skin response, etc.) and/or any suitable type of data.
[0021] Devices implementing at least a portion of the method 100 can include one or more of: a biosignal detector, a smartwatch, smartphone, tablet, desktop, or any other suitable device, as described in more detail below.).
.
Claim 8. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the one or more rules are related to providing the animal data for consideration
([0032] Cognitive state data rules and/or supplemental data rules can include rules relating to time (e.g., when to generate cognitive state data, when to generate specific types of cognitive state data, generation in response to which portions of the method 100, etc.), mechanism (e.g., which criteria to based cognitive state generation upon, how to analyze raw data in forming processed cognitive state data, generating cognitive state metrics based on comparisons to which baselines, to which users, what kind of data to generate, etc.), location (e.g., which component and/or device creates the cognitive state data, etc.), and/or any suitable type of cognitive state data rule.).
Claim 9. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein a plurality of rules are associated with the same animal data
(Le [0032]-[0034]).
Claim 10. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein a single rule of the one or more rules includes a plurality of rules
(Le [0032]-[0034]).
Claim 11. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein one or more alerts are created or modified based upon the one or more rules
(Le [0032]-[0034]).
Claim 12. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the one or more rules or one or more instructions are created or modified based upon one or more instructions either directly or indirectly provided by a user
(Le [0033] Rules can be set by a fourth party (e.g., a biosignal detector manufacturer, an application programming interface provider, etc.), a third party (e.g., a third party developer, a third party manager of a website and/or application, etc.), a user (e.g., a user of the biosignal detector, a consumer of third party digital content, etc.), and/or any other suitable entity. Additionally or alternatively, rules can be automatically determined (e.g., rules generated based defined preferences of an individual, rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc.).
Claim 13. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 12 wherein one or more artificial intelligence techniques are utilized to create or modify the one or more rules or the one or more instructions
(Le [0033] rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc.)).
Claim 14. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the one or more rules are automatically implemented on the one or more receiving computing devices
(Le [0033] rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc.))
Claim 15. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the one or more rules instruct, alert, enable, or prevent one or more actions related to the animal data on the one or more receiving computing devices
(Le [0032]-[0034] Communication rules can include rules for when and/or how to receive, respond, and/or transmit cognitive state data, requests, and/or any suitable type of data. ).
Claim 16. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 15 wherein the one or more actions are created, modified, or taken utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques
(Le [0032] mechanism (e.g., which criteria to based cognitive state generation upon, how to analyze raw data in forming processed cognitive state data, generating cognitive state metrics based on comparisons to which baselines, to which users, what kind of data to generate, etc.),).
Claim 17. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein at least a portion of the animal data and the one or more rules are obfuscated and sent over one or more networks to one or more computing devices
(Le [0032]-[0034] Communication rules can include rules for when and/or how to receive, respond, and/or transmit cognitive state data, requests, and/or any suitable type of data.).
Claim 18. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein at least a portion of the one or more rules are automatically created or modified based on one or more user preferences or characteristics
([0032] how to analyze raw data in forming processed cognitive state data, generating cognitive state metrics based on comparisons to which baselines, to which users, what kind of data to generate, etc.), location (e.g., which component and/or device creates the cognitive state data, etc.),).
Claim 19. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 18 wherein the one or more user preferences or characteristics are established via a display device
(Le [0022] The system 300 functions to facilitate collection of bioelectrical signal data (e.g., EEG data) while a user engages in third party content linked with an interface (e.g., an application programming interface)... analysis of bioelectrical signal data for third parties to leverage in tailoring content delivered to a user.).
Claim 20. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein one or more artificial intelligence techniques are utilized to create or modify the one or more rules
(Le [0032] mechanism (e.g., which criteria to based cognitive state generation upon, how to analyze raw data in forming processed cognitive state data, generating cognitive state metrics based on comparisons to which baselines, to which users, what kind of data to generate, etc.), ).
Claim 21. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 20 wherein the one or more rules are created or modified based upon one or more user preferences or characteristics
(Le [0027] Portions of the system 300 and/or the method 100 can be used with a set of data structures. Data structures can include: cognitive state data, supplemental data, rules, and/or any suitable data structure. In a first variation, the types of data structures are predetermined (e.g., by a fourth party, by a third party who defines the format of the data to be requested, by a user, etc.). In a second variation, the data structures are automatically generated. For example, a third-party can define a set of preferences regarding the type of data to be requested regarding a user's interactions with third party content, and the necessary data structures can be created in response to the third-party set of preferences.).
Claim 22. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 21 wherein creation or modification of the one or more rules occurs automatically
(Le [0033] rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc.)).
Claim 23. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the one or more receiving computing devices create or modify one or more rules related to the animal data
(Le [0033] rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc.)).
Claim 24. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 23 wherein creation or modification of the one or more rules are communicated to another one or more computing devices
(Le [0032] Communication rules can include rules for when and/or how to receive, respond, and/or transmit cognitive state data, requests, and/or any suitable type of data. Examples of communication rules include transmitting data over specific communication links (e.g., wireless, wired, etc.), format of responses to requests, when to process requests, etc. Permission rules can include permission levels for third party accounts (e.g., varying access levels to cognitive state data), user accounts (e.g., varying access levels for users to see a third party's cognitive state analysis leading to how content is delivered to the user, etc.).).
Claim 25. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the one or more rules are created or modified on one or more different computing devices from which the animal data is provided
(Le [0033] rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc.)).
Claim 26. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein a generating computing device generating the one or more rules, providing at least a portion of the animal data, or a combination thereof requires compliance related to the one or more rules from the one or more receiving computing devices
(Carey [0141] However, she does understand the trainer's reasons for asking for this data, and wishes to support his analysis, so rather than accepting the trainer's request, Susan herself uses an interface at the online service to create a computation that allows access to the altitude data, but not latitude and longitude.)
Claim 27. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 26 wherein the generating computing device provides one or more certifications to the one or more receiving computing devices based upon its compliance
(Carey [0097] if the requester can provide credentials that identifies him or her as a licensed physician in the state where the data view is requested, all results are accurate down to an order of two.).
Claim 28. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 27 wherein the one or more receiving computing devices implement one or more lines of executable code upon receiving the one or more certifications that notify, instruct, enable, or prevent one or more actions related to use of the animal data
(Carey [0119] The service creates a license object that cryptographically links together the data package, the rules, and the computations.
[0122] A series of data structures, one for each rule, that bind the rules to their respective identifiers by packaging the rule identifiers together with cryptographic hashes of the byte codes of the executable rules,).
Claim 30. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein one or more lines of executable code are embedded within at least a portion of the animal data
(Carey [0134] Executes the byte codes that instantiate the rules and makes a decision as to whether to continue processing based upon whether the conditions expressed in the rules are met, [0135] Assuming the rules have been successfully evaluated, uses the data structure binding the data package to the encryption key to obtain the key and decrypt the data,...) .
Claim 31. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 30 wherein the one or more lines of executable code instruct one or more receiving computing devices to take one or more actions
(Carey [0119] The service creates a license object that cryptographically links together the data package, the rules, and the computations. [0122] A series of data structures, one for each rule, that bind the rules to their respective identifiers by packaging the rule identifiers together with cryptographic hashes of the byte codes of the executable rules,).
Claim 32. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 31 wherein the one or more actions include gathering information from the receiving computing device on which the animal data is located and communicating at least a portion of the gathered information to another one or more other computing devices
(Carey [0061] By combining the third-party computation technique described above with the techniques described regarding location of computation, it becomes possible to propose a computation to run against a remote resource. In one such embodiment, the owner of the resource could determine the necessary steps for authenticating and validating the proposed computation, and then perform the computation against his own resource, returning the result to the requester. One example of such a configuration is illustrated in FIG. 2.).
Claim 33. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 32 wherein the gathered information includes at least one of: timestamp, IP address, location, device, type of browser, operating system, or service provider
(Le [0092] a fourth party remote server can automatically tag portions of the content stream based on mapping time stamps of the cognitive state data to time stamps of the content stream), and/or otherwise performed. ).
Claim 34. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 33 wherein one or more notifications are created or modified based upon the gathered information
(Le [0084] Notifications can include information regarding cognitive state data (e.g., amount of cognitive state data received, presence of generated cognitive state data, cognitive state data readiness to be transmitted to third parties, type of cognitive state data generated, etc.), supplemental data (e.g., user device data).
Claim 35. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 32 wherein the gathered information enables one or more computing devices to monitor, communicate, enforce, or a combination thereof one or more terms related to consideration
(Le [0084] Block S160 recites: notifying an entity S160, which functions to notify a user and/or a third party of information concerning cognitive state data. Notifications can include information regarding cognitive state data (e.g., amount of cognitive state data received, presence of generated cognitive state data, cognitive state data readiness to be transmitted to third parties, type of cognitive state data generated, etc.), supplemental data (e.g., user device data corresponding to a user's engagement with content, etc.), communication data (e.g., receipt of a request, progress of a transmission of cognitive state data to a third party, etc.), events (e.g., presence of a new user from which cognitive state data can be generated, etc.),)..
Claim 36. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 31 wherein the one or more actions are created, modified, or taken automatically utilizing one or more artificial intelligence techniques
(Le [0032] mechanism (e.g., which criteria to based cognitive state generation upon, how to analyze raw data in forming processed cognitive state data, generating cognitive state metrics based on comparisons to which baselines, to which users, what kind of data to generate, etc.), ).
Claim 37. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein one or more agreements are automatically generated based upon the one or more rules
(Le [0093] , rules can be automatically determined (e.g., rules generated based defined preferences of an individual, rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc.).
Claim 38. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 37 wherein the one or more agreements include one or more terms related to the animal data from one or more previous agreements
(Le [0093] , rules can be automatically determined (e.g., rules generated based defined preferences of an individual, rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc. e.g. preferences are the terms).
Claim 39. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 38 wherein the one or more terms are automatically generated and included as part of the one or more agreements
(Le [0093] , rules can be automatically determined (e.g., rules generated based defined preferences of an individual, rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc.).
Claim 40. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 38 wherein a user is prevented by the animal data compliance system from taking one or more actions based upon one or more previous agreements
(Carey [0152] The licenses that were issued to the physician are marked as invalid, the physician's software is notified of this fact,).
Claim 41. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 37 wherein the one or more agreements are created or modified based upon one or more new agreements gathered or created by the animal data compliance system
(Carey [0195] Using the genetics service, the researcher asks each of the 130 candidates if they are willing to participate. For those that agree, the service binds the new computation to their respective genome sequences with the condition that only the originator of the computation may run it--the holder of the private key corresponding to the public key used to sign the computation.].
Claim 46. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 wherein the at least a portion of the one or more rules are embedded within the animal data
(Carey [0117] The service generates a rule that allows the trainer access to this data. This rule may be based, for example, on some digital representation of the relationship between Susan and the trainer that is evaluated when the data package is accessed by the trainer.).
Claim 61. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1, wherein the receiving computing device enables one or more users to take one or more actions to create, modify, select, and/or establish the one or more terms related to the animal data
(Carey [0148] Through the service, the trainer asks Susan if that would be acceptable, and she agrees. The trainer forwards the last month's worth of Susan's data directly to the physician. The data packages and licenses are included.).
Claim 62. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1, wherein based upon one or more agreements, the animal data compliance system restricts and/or defines one or more selections of one or more terms
(Carey [0148] Through the service, the trainer asks Susan if that would be acceptable, and she agrees. The trainer forwards the last month's worth of Susan's data directly to the physician. The data packages and licenses are included.).
Claim 63. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1, wherein based upon one or more rights granted to one or more data acquirers, the animal data compliance system restricts and/or defines one or more selections of one or more terms
(Carey [0148] Through the service, the trainer asks Susan if that would be acceptable, and she agrees. The trainer forwards the last month's worth of Susan's data directly to the physician. The data packages and licenses are included.
[0150] After analyzing the data, the physician beings to suspect a problem with poor oxygenation, and, through the online service, requests additional access to Susan's pulse oximetry data, which Susan approves for the physician. Note that the trainer does not have access to the same data; the service has created separate computations for the pulse oximetry data for the physician and sent licenses containing those computations to the physician only.).
Claim 64. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1, wherein one or more artificial intelligence techniques are utilized to learn about one or more user preferences in order to make one or more selections of one or more terms
(Le [0054][0058] automatically determined (e.g., based on user information, contextual information, selected by a machine learning model generated from user populations, etc.), and/or determined through any suitable manner...).
Claim 65. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1, wherein the collecting computing device utilizes one or more machine learning techniques to patterns in a user’s actions and automatically creates one or more rules derived from the user’s actions
(Le [0033] rules automatically determined in response to constraints of a user device, etc. [0060] Historical patterns can be extracted based on biosignal values, the content that was being engaged with the biosignal values were recorded, contextual information, and/or any suitable criteria. Self-scaling of cognitive state metrics can include comparison of collected biosignal data with collected baseline biosignal data (e.g., collected when the user was engaging reference content, collected during a validation and registration phase for the user, etc.).)
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le, Carey and Martins and further in view of Miller (US 20190272537 A1).
Claim 29. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1 and further discloses where data can be amongst multiple parties but does not specifically disclose wherein the animal data compliance system operates utilizing distributed ledger technology or other ledger system
However, Miller teaches wherein the animal data compliance system operates utilizing distributed ledger technology or other ledger system
([0057] in this sense, certain example implementations of the disclosed technology enable partial or full distribution of ledgers to a networked distributed ledger system 412 depending on various granular factors as may be governed by specifics of the PAN, or even the specifics of the transactions.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use distributed ledger technology as taught by Miller within the system of Le for the purpose of retaining transaction records to determine which party has accessed the data.
Claim(s) 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le, Carey and Martins and further in view of Deobhakta (US 20090326982 A1).
Claim 42. Le, Carey and Martins teach the animal data compliance system of claim 1, and further discloses the use of records but does not specifically disclose wherein a digital record for the animal data is created or modified, the digital record including the one or more rules associated with the animal data.
However, Deobhakta teaches wherein a digital record for the animal data is created or modified, the digital record including the one or more rules associated with the animal data
(Deobhakta [0062] The validation module may be further configured to generate a person identification code (PERSON_ID) and a record identification code (RECORD_ID) that may be used to identify the person and record associated with the patient's approval of the access request upon receiving the request response from the patient via the patient interface. [0062] An AUTHORIZATION_RULES field may be populated with status indicators either approving or denying each of the access permissions specified by the access request (i.e., REQUESTED_DATA)).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use a digital record as taught by Deobhakta within the system of Le for the purpose of tracking changes of information between parties.
Claim 43. Le, Carey, Martins and Deobhakta teach the animal data compliance system of claim 42 wherein the digital record includes a chain of ownership that is created or modified based upon one or more ownerships or one or more periods of ownership
(Deobhakta [0062] The validation module may be further configured to generate a person identification code (PERSON_ID) and a record identification code (RECORD_ID) that may be used to identify the person and record associated with the patient's approval of the access request upon receiving the request response from the patient via the patient interface.).
Claim 44. Le, Carey, Martins and Deobhakta teach the animal data compliance system of claim 43 wherein two or more animal data acquirers with rights to the same animal data are combined into the same digital record
(Deobhakta [0066] The clinical system may store one or more of the parameters specified by the consent notification at data store 146. For example, referring also to FIG. 10, the person identification code (i.e., PERSON_ID) and the record identification code (i.e., RECORD_ID) may be stored at the PATIENTS table of the clinical system in association with the PAITIENT_ID. The validation module may also update the status indicator (i.e., STATUS) at the PENDING_REQUESTS table upon submission of the consent notification to the clinical system via the API.).
Claim 45. Le, Carey, Martins and Deobhakta teach the animal data compliance system of claim 43 wherein the chain of ownership that includes multiple owners of the same animal data originates, and is operable to be tracked, from a single user, a single animal data set, or a single type of animal data
(Le [0037] receiving a request from the third party for cognitive state data derived from the cognitive state metric S140; transmitting the cognitive state data to the third party device S145; and automatically collecting a dataset from the user as the user engaged tailored content generated by the third party in response to the cognitive state data S150.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-15, filed 28 August 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-41, 46 and 61-65 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Le (US 20160259492 A1) in view of Carey (US 20120260346 A1) and further in view of Barreto Martins (US 20080008357 A1 “Martins”) for claims 1-28, 30-41, 46 and 61-65; a rejection is made in view of Carey and Martins and further in view of Miller (US 20190272537 A1) for claim 29; and a rejection is made in view of Le, Carey and Martins and further in view of Deobhakta (US 20090326982 A1) for claims 42-45.
In the broadest interpretation without incorporating the specification into the claims (MPEP2111 e.g. plain language), the prior art of Carey provides obviousness improvement for “(1) the one or more terms being selected, established, created, modified, accepted, and/or agreed upon by the targeted individual from whom the animal data is derived from or their authorized representative, and (2) the one or more terms reflecting, at least in part, one or more preferences establishing one or more permissions, restrictions, rights, and/or conditions related to the acquisition, distribution and/or use of at least a portion of the animal data by one or more acquirers and/or receiving computing devices.”. Although the terms of a data-subject-authored governance feature is not expressly claimed, however, the prior art of Carey clearly teaches an obviousness improvement of this feature. Moreover, the prior art of Le and Carey also teaches the data-subject-defined permission as well as the usage of empowers the data subject to author multi-factor, usage-specific licensing terms and enforcement. In addition, the prior art of Le, Carey and Martins are all inventions related to at least one of the sports wagering system and/or the sports and the entertainment media system, and/or the performance analytics system.
Lastly, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689