DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Application filed on March 3, 2023. Claims 1-19 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 3, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Janus et al (hereinafter, “Janus”, 2014/0013422).
As per claim 1, Janus discloses a system for providing security media being viewed or wishing to be viewed by an individual, the system comprising:
a media repository (i.e., server) having media (paragraph 0018);
a authorization user device (paragraphs 0019);
a media receiving unit (i.e., computing system may be a mobile phone, laptop or desktop or tablet computer) (paragraph 0014);
a communication system for transmitting media from said media repository to said authorization user device and said media receiving unit (paragraph 0017; the network interface card adapted connected to computing system through a system bus to a network that allows a computing system to communicate with a server);
a display device in communication with said media receiving unit that displays said media (paragraph 0016);
one or more sensors that operate to obtain scanned information, wherein said scanned information is transmitted to said authorization user device that sends said scanned information to one or more identification data centers (paragraphs 0019- 0021 discloses a sensor to obtain authentication credentials that may include fingerprint of a user that is transmitted to a storage);
wherein said one or more data centers (i.e., storage) operate to make a comparison of said scanned information with reference information (paragraphs 0021-0022; discloses comparing the credentials provided by the user to credentials of authorized users stored within a storage); and
wherein using said comparison a determination is made if the individual viewing the media or wishing to view the media is an authorized individual (paragraph 0022 discloses determining that the user credentials are valid and allowing the user to view the confidential content), and if the determination is that the individual is not an authorized individual, said media repository sends a command to said authorization user device to stop sending said media to said media receiving unit (paragraphs 0025-0026 discloses if the user of the computing system is not an authorized user the confidential content is not displayed).
As pr claim 2, Janus discloses:
wherein the media is streaming media (paragraph 0022).
As per claim 4, Janus discloses:
wherein said one or more sensors operate to obtain scanned information which is used to determine if an individual has entered said display viewing area and wherein if an individual has entered said display viewing area, the display of the media on said display device is stopped (paragraphs 0028 and 0029).
As per claim 5, Janus discloses:
wherein said scanned information is used by said one or more identification information data centers to make a determination if an object capable or being used to record media being displayed by said display device or is transmitting said media to a location outside said display viewing area (paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0036).
As per claim 9, Janus discloses:
wherein said one or more sensors are placed within said display viewing area that operate to transmit scanned information to said one or more identification data centers (paragraphs 0019- 0021 discloses a sensor to obtain authentication credentials that may include fingerprint of a user that is transmitted to a storage) and wherein a determination is made as to the number of individuals within said display viewing area (paragraph 0037).
As per claims 10 and 13, Janus discloses:
wherein said one or more sensors are placed within said display viewing area that operate to obtain scanned information (paragraphs 0019- 0021 discloses a sensor to obtain authentication credentials that may include fingerprint of a user that is transmitted to a storage) and wherein said one or more identification data centers make a comparison of said scanned information with said reference information (paragraphs 0021-0022; discloses comparing the credentials provided by the user to credentials of authorized users stored within a storage) and wherein a determination is made as to if an authorized individual viewing the media being displayed on said display device has entered or left said media viewing area (paragraph 0036).
As per claim 11, Janus discloses:
wherein said display device is in the form of a computer or a tablet or a cellular telephone or a television or a large screen system or a watch, or a helmet, or a vehicle windshield (paragraphs 0014 and 0016).
As per claims 12 and 16, Janus discloses:
wherein said scanned information is weighted and a comparison is made using such weighted scanned information and a determination is made using weighted scanned information if the individual viewing the media or wishing to view the media is an authorized individual (paragraph 0022 discloses determining that the user credentials are valid and allowing the user to view the confidential content).
As per claim 19, discloses a system for providing security media being viewed or wishing to be viewed by an individual, the system comprising:
a media source (paragraph 0018);
an authorization user device in communication with said media source (paragraphs 0019);
a media receiving unit having a display device and a video camera, wherein said media receiving unit is in communication with said authorization user device (i.e., computing system may be a mobile phone, laptop or desktop or tablet computer) (paragraphs 0014 and 0023-0024);
wherein said video camera takes real-time video showing an individual (paragraphs 0023 and 0024 discloses a digital camera capturing images of user in the viewing area);
wherein said real-time video is transmitted to said authorization user device and said authorization user device transmits said real-time video to one or more identification data centers as scanned information (paragraphs 0023 and 0024 discloses a digital camera capturing images of user in the viewing area);
wherein said scanned information is compared to reference information and said comparison is used to make a determination is said individual shown on said real- time video is an authorized individual (paragraph 0022-0024 discloses determining that the user credentials are valid and allowing the user to view the confidential content); and
wherein if said determination is that the individual is not an authorized individual, said media source transmits a command to said authorization user device to stop transmitting said media to said media receiving unit (paragraphs 0025-0026 discloses if the user of the computing system is not an authorized user the confidential content is not displayed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janus in view of Ballard et al (hereinafter, “Ballard”, U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0225693).
As per claims 3 and 15, Janus discloses the invention substantially as claims discussed above.
However, Janus does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said scanned information being transmitted to said one or more identification data centers is encrypted by sad authorization user device and is re-encrypted when scanned information is received by said one or more identification data centers.
Ballard discloses biometrically enabled private secure information repository comprising:
wherein said scanned information being transmitted to said one or more identification data centers is encrypted by sad authorization user device and is re-encrypted when scanned information is received by said one or more identification data centers (abstract, paragraphs 0003 and 0045-0046 discloses encrypting all data and then re-encrypting all data while in storage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Janus to include the technique of encrypting and re-encrypting all data for the purpose of storing and retrieving all types of information with the use of biometrics for authenticating and ensuring a complete security of the system.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janus in view of Jhawar et al (hereinafter, “Jhawar”, U.S. Pat. No. 11.494.472).
As per claim 6, Janus discloses the invention substantially as claims discussed above.
However, Janus does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said display device is in the form of a headset.
Jhawar discloses providing voice activated authentication comprising:
wherein said display device is in the form of a headset (col. 5, lines 7-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Janus to include a headset as a display device to allow a user to log into a hands-free head-mounted device using voice activated authentication where security is maintained over tine using secondary authentication and other safeguards to ensure authorized access and use of the device.
As per claim 7, Janus discloses the invention substantially as claims discussed above.
However, Janus does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said display device is in the form of a headset for use by an authorized individual and includes one or more sensors that operate to transmit scanned information to said authorization device that encrypts said scanned information and transmits said encrypted scanned information to one or more one or more individual identification data centers that operate to determine if the individual wearing the headset is an authorized individual.
Jhawar discloses providing voice activated authentication comprising:
wherein said display device is in the form of a headset for use by an authorized individual and includes one or more sensors that operate to transmit scanned information to said authorization device that encrypts said scanned information and transmits said encrypted scanned information to one or more one or more individual identification data centers that operate to determine if the individual wearing the headset is an authorized individual (col. 9, lines 36-67 and col. 10, lines 1-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Janus to include a headset as a display device to allow a user to log into a hands-free head-mounted device using voice activated authentication where security is maintained over tine using secondary authentication and other safeguards to ensure authorized access and use of the device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janus in view of Smolarz.
As per claim 8, Janus discloses the invention substantially as claims discussed above.
However, Janus does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said display device includes a sound system that utilizes conventional bone conducting technology for transmitting sound waves converted into vibrations that are received directly by a user’s Cochlea (the sound system just like the overall system can integrate with one or more sensors (i.e. skin sensor, biometric sensor).
Smolarz discloses a wireless audio transmitter and receiver bone device using bone conduction comprising:
wherein said display device includes a sound system that utilizes conventional bone conducting technology for transmitting sound waves converted into vibrations that are received directly by a user’s Cochlea (the sound system just like the overall system can integrate with one or more sensors (i.e. skin sensor, biometric sensor) (paragraphs 0006 and 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Janus by incorporating bone conducting technology for decoding sound waves into a different type of vibrations that are received by the cochlea in to achieve an effect equivalent or comparable to hearing directly.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al (hereinafter, “Feldman”, U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0022290) in further view of Janus.
As per claim 14, Feldman discloses a vehicle having a system for providing security for media being viewed or wishing to be viewed by an individual, the system comprising:
a windshield attached to the vehicle (paragraphs 0017 and 0022);
a media source located outside the vehicle (paragraphs 0032 and 0038);
a media receiving unit installed in said vehicle (paragraph 0017);
a communication system for transmitting encrypted media from said media source to an authorization user device installed in the vehicle (paragraph 0022);
wherein said windshield in in communication with said media receiving unit and displays said media (paragraph 0027).
However, Feldman does not explicitly disclose:
one or more sensors for obtaining scanned information and transmits said scanned information to said authorization user device;
wherein said authorization user device transmits said scanned information for use in making a determination if the individual is an authorized individual;
wherein if said determination is that the individual is not an authorized individual, said media source transmits a command to said authorization user device to stop transmitting said media to said media receiving unit.
Janus discloses a continuous multi-factor authentication comprising:
one or more sensors for obtaining scanned information and transmits said scanned information to said authorization user device (paragraphs 0019- 0021 discloses a sensor to obtain authentication credentials that may include fingerprint of a user that is transmitted to a storage);
wherein said authorization user device transmits said scanned information for use in making a determination if the individual is an authorized individual (paragraph 0022 discloses determining that the user credentials are valid and allowing the user to view the confidential content);
wherein if said determination is that the individual is not an authorized individual, said media source transmits a command to said authorization user device to stop transmitting said media to said media receiving unit paragraphs 0025-0026 discloses if the user of the computing system is not an authorized user the confidential content is not displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Feldman by incorporating a continuous authentication module for the purpose of obtaining authentication credentials to allow authorized users to gain access to confidential content.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al (hereinafter, “Feldman”, U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0022290) in view of Janus and in further view of Konishi.
As per claim 17, Feldman in view of Janus discloses the invention substantially as claims discussed above.
However, Feldman in view of Janus do not explicitly disclose:
wherein said one or more sensors are placed within said vehicle to obtain said scanned information and wherein said scanned information is transmitted to one or more identification data centers and wherein said determination is made as to the number of individuals within said vehicle.
Konishi discloses a passenger counting system, method and program comprising:
wherein said one or more sensors are placed within said vehicle to obtain said scanned information and wherein said scanned information is transmitted to one or more identification data centers and wherein said determination is made as to the number of individuals within said vehicle (paragraphs 0025, 0040-0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Feldman in view Janus by incorporating a passenger sensor for the purpose of counting the number of persons present in a vehicle.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al (hereinafter, “Feldman”, U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0022290) in view of Janus and in further view of Lemelson et al (hereinafter, “Lemelson”, U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0234109).
As per claim 18, Feldman in view of Janus discloses the invention substantially as claims discussed above.
However, Feldman in view of Janus do not explicitly disclose:
wherein said authorization user device is in electrical communication with a ignition system and if said determination is that the individual is not an authorized individual, said media source transmits a command to said authorization user device to deactivate said ignition system.
Lemelson discloses a facial-recognition vehicle security system and automatically starting a vehicle comprising:
wherein said authorization user device is in electrical communication with a ignition system and if said determination is that the individual is not an authorized individual, said media source transmits a command to said authorization user device to deactivate said ignition system (paragraphs 0028, 0030 and 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Feldman in view Janus by incorporating deactivating a vehicle if an unauthorized user for the purpose of preventing auto-theft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LASHONDA T JACOBS-BURTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4004. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LASHONDA JACOBS-BURTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
ljb
November 2, 2024