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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/02/2026 has been entered.
This office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 04/02/2026. As per instant Amendment, Claims 1 and 14 have been amended; Claims 1 and 14 are independent Claims; Claims 1-26 have been examined and are pending. This Office Action is made Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained as the claims are directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
After having carefully analyzed claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the claim is directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “compare the at least one program trace signal;” and “generate a notification.” Said steps are “mental process” as broadly interpreted said steps could be performed in the human mind or using pencil/paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that utilize determination result into a practical application. It’s noted that the claim recites the steps of “collect the at least one program trace signal… .” However, said step is not sufficiently to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application as the steps are recited at a high level of generality in gathering/storing information and amounts to mere data gathering/storing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
It’s noted that the claims recite additional elements (i.e., detector operable to generate at least one program to trace signal comprising a time-varying measurement, device processor, and capture device, etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of comparing, generating, and/or data gathering, etc.,) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using a generic computer component.
It’s also noted that the claims recite “compare the at least one program trace signal with at least one reference program trace signal by reconstructing, by reconstructing, by a deep learning system to trained to reconstruct a parameter that is part of telemetry transmitted by the at least one device processor …” However, applying machine learning to an abstract idea does not make a claim statutory. Courts consistently find that merely using generic computer-based artificial intelligence as a tool to automate a known process without meaningfully improving the underlying technology or algorithm itself fails to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l (U.S. 2014); and MPEP § 2106.04 for details.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13 and 15-26; claims 2-13 and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more for the same reason discussed above. It’s noted that claims 5 and 18 recites additional steps, such as “determining, generating;” claims 8 and 21 recites additional steps, such as “comparing, generating;” claims 9 and 22 recites additional steps, such as “determining, generating.” However, said steps are not sufficiently to be consider as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. Said limitations/steps are in a form of insignificant extra-solution activity or also mental processes. Therefore, said limitations are not sufficiently to be considered as applying the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the claim is directed to an abstract idea as reciting the limitations “compare the at least one program trace signal;” and “generate a notification.” The aforementioned step is “mental process” as broadly interpreted said step could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Said abstract idea and/or judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that utilize determination result into a practical application. It’s noted that the claim recites the steps of “collect the at least one program trace signal… .” However, said step is not sufficiently to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application as the steps are recited at a high le1vel of generality in gathering/storing information and amounts to mere data gathering/storing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
It’s noted that the claims recite additional elements (i.e., detector operable to generate at least one program to trace signal comprising a time-varying measurement, device processor, and capture device, etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of comparing, generating, and/or data gathering, etc.,) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using a generic computer component.
It’s also noted that the claims recite “compare the at least one program trace signal with at least one reference program trace signal by reconstructing, by reconstructing, by a deep learning system to trained to reconstruct a parameter that is part of telemetry transmitted by the at least one device processor …” However, applying machine learning to an abstract idea does not make a claim statutory. Courts consistently find that merely using generic computer-based artificial intelligence as a tool to automate a known process without meaningfully improving the underlying technology or algorithm itself fails to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l (U.S. 2014); and MPEP § 2106.04 for details.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. See US Application 20200366692 and US Application 20200286492. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13 and 15-26; claims 2-13 and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more for the same reason discussed above. It’s noted that claims 5 and 18 recites additional steps, such as “determining, generating;” claims 8 and 21 recites additional steps, such as “comparing, generating;” claims 9 and 22 recites additional steps, such as “determining, generating.” However, said steps are not sufficiently to be consider as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. Said limitations/steps are in a form of insignificant extra-solution activity or also mental processes. Therefore, said limitations are not sufficiently to be considered as applying the abstract idea into a practical application.
As result claims 2-13 and 15-26 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-19, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (“Moreno,” US 20200366692, published on 11/19/2020) in view of LESSO et al. (“LESSO,” US 20200286492, published on 09/10/2020).
Regarding Claim 1;
Moreno discloses a system for monitoring at least one device processor connected to a communication network, the system comprising (abstract: operating a monitoring processor to detect a communication of a message on the local network; identify at least one purported control processor related to the communication):
at least one detector operable to generate at least one program trace signal comprising a time-varying measurement of at least one side-channel emission from at least one side-channel of the at least one device processor, the at least one detector comprising at least one of (i) a resistor placed in series with a power input line of the at least one device processor and a capture device configured to measure current or voltage across the resistor to obtain the at least one program trace signal, or (ii) an electromagnetic detector positioned to detect electromagnetic emissions from the at least one device processor, and the capture device configured to obtain the at least one program trace signal, the electromagnetic detector comprising at least one of a radio frequency probe or an antenna (par 0008; generate a program trace signal from at least one of power consumption, electromagnetic emission, or acoustic emanation of the respective control processor; par 0057; Side-channel monitoring involves capturing involuntary emissions (i.e., side-channels) [] measurements as a function of time can be referred to as power traces, EM emissions traces, or acoustic traces; par 0062; the resistor can be placed in series with the power input line of the control processor. An analog signal indicative of the power consumption of the control processor, or the program trace, can be obtained by measuring current or voltage across the resistor); and
at least one monitoring processor in communication with the at least one detector, the at least one monitoring processor being operable to: collect the at least one program trace signal for the at least one device processor from the capture device, the at least one program trace signal obtained by at least one of (i) measuring the current or the voltage across the resistor (ii) detecting the electromagnetic emissions from the electromagnetic detector (par 0008; a monitoring processor in communication with the communication component and each detector [] the monitoring processor is operable to detect a communication of a message on the local network; par 0062; the resistor can be placed in series with the power input line of the control processor. An analog signal indicative of the power consumption of the control processor, or the program trace, can be obtained by measuring current or voltage across the resistor):
compare the at least one program trace signal with at least one reference program trace signal by reconstructing, by a deep learning system trained to reconstruct a parameter that is part of telemetry transmitted by the at least one device processor, the parameter from the at least one program trace signal for a time period (par 0057; Side-channel monitoring involves capturing involuntary emissions [] measurements as a function of time can be referred to as power traces; par 0096; comparing the actual program trace signal of the at least one purported control processor to an expected program trace sample. For example, expected program trace samples can relate to execution of various program code such as but not limited to actions such as transmitting a message, processing a message, and other commands or actions; par 0099; the program trace signal of the purported control processor relative to the communication can involve machine learning techniques [] a supervised learning engine or machine learning classifier trained to recognize expected program trace samples);
generate a notification (par 0105; In the event that the control processor of the purported transmitter of the message is classified as having been transmitting during the communication [] the monitoring processor can generate an anomaly notification).
Moreno discloses compare the at least one program trace signal with at least one reference program trace signal by reconstructing, by a deep learning system trained to reconstruct a parameter that is part of telemetry transmitted by the at least one device processor, the parameter from the at least one program trace signal for a time period; generate a notification as recited above, but do not explicitly disclose determining a score associated with at least one reference activity for the at least one device processor, the at least one reference activity corresponding to the at least one reference program trace signal; the score associated with the at least one reference activity for the at least one device processor.
However, in an analogous art, LESSO discloses microphone authentication system/method that includes:
determining a score associated with at least one reference activity for the at least one device processor, the at least one reference activity corresponding to the at least one reference program trace signal (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range of values [] determine a score based on how similar the determined parameters are to the predetermined microphone parameter);
the score associated with the at least one reference activity for the at least one device processor (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range of values for the predetermined microphone parameter. The comparison module output an indication of whether the spectral parameters are a sufficient match for the relevant predetermined microphone parameter [] determine a score based on how similar the determined parameters are to the predetermined microphone parameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LESSO with the method/system of Moreno to include determining a score associated with at least one reference activity for the at least one device processor, the at least one reference activity corresponding to the at least one reference program trace signal; the score associated with the at least one reference activity for the at least one device processor. One would have been motivated to comparison block configured to receive a first signal indicative of one or more spectral parameters of at least part of an audio signal to be verified, and compare the one or more spectral parameters to one or more predetermined characteristic microphone parameters relating to a characteristic resonance associated with an acoustic port of a microphone (LESSO: abstract).
Regarding Claim 2;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
Moreno discloses wherein: the at least one reference activity comprises an event (Moreno: par 0096; comparing the actual program trace signal of the at least one purported control processor to an expected program trace sample; par 0099; the program trace signal of the purported control processor relative to the communication can involve machine learning techniques. In some embodiments, the system can include a supervised learning engine or machine learning classifier trained to recognize expected program trace samples. As noted above, expected program trace samples can relate to execution of various program code).
LESSO further discloses the score comprises a likelihood of the event occurring on the at least one device processor (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range of values for the predetermined microphone parameter. The comparison module output an indication of whether the spectral parameters are a sufficient match for the relevant predetermined microphone parameter [] determine a score based on how similar the determined parameters are to the predetermined microphone parameter).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
Moreno discloses wherein: the at least one reference activity comprises a metric (par 0062; an analog signal indicative of the power consumption of the control processor, or the program trace, can be obtained by measuring current or voltage across the resistor); and
LESSO further discloses the score comprises an estimated value of the metric measurable at the at least one device processor (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range of values for the predetermined microphone parameter. The comparison module output an indication of whether the spectral parameters are a sufficient match for the relevant predetermined microphone parameter [] determine a score based on how similar the determined parameters are to the predetermined microphone parameter).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
Moreno discloses wherein the at least one monitoring processor is operable to continuously collect the at least one program trace signal for the at least one device processor (Moreno: par 0076; obtain program traces of the control processors connected to the local network; par 0081; side-channel monitoring can identify an anomalous condition in which the local network; par 0085; the generation of the program trace at can occur continuously while detection of a communication of a message on the local network).
Regarding Claim 5;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
LESSO discloses wherein the at least one monitoring processor is operable to: determine whether the score associated with the at least one reference activity for the at least one device processor exceeds a predetermined threshold value (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range [] determination block may provide a positive verification if the comparison indicates that all determined parameters are a sufficient match for the predetermined microphone parameters and/or if a determined score or distance measure is within an acceptable range and otherwise may provide a negative verification); and generate the notification in response to determining that the score associated with the at least one reference activity for the at least one device processor exceeds the predetermined threshold value (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range [] determination block may provide a positive verification if the comparison indicates that all determined parameters are a sufficient match for the predetermined microphone parameters and/or if a determined score or distance measure is within an acceptable range and otherwise may provide a negative verification).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
Moreno discloses wherein the at least one monitoring processor is operable to transmit the notification to another computing device (Moreno: par 0105; In the event that the control processor of the purported transmitter of the message is classified as having been transmitting during the communication [] the monitoring processor can generate an anomaly notification).
Regarding Claim 11;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
Moreno discloses wherein the at least one side-channel comprises one or more of a power consumption, an electromagnetic emission, a magnetic side-channel, an acoustic emanation, or an ultrasound emanation of the at least one device processor (Moreno: par 0008; a system for side-channel monitoring of a local network having a plurality of control processors connected [] the detectors are operable to generate a program trace signal from at least one of power consumption, electromagnetic emission, or acoustic emanation of the respective control processor).
Regarding Claim 12;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
Moreno discloses wherein: the at least one reference activity comprises a plurality of reference activities (Moreno: par 0019; a control processor of the plurality of control processors as executing the command; par 0021; storing a plurality of expected program trace samples; and the monitoring processor can be operable to compare the program trace signal of the at least one purported control processor to an expected program trace sample); the at least one reference program trace signal comprises a plurality of reference program trace signals (Moreno: par 0021; storing a plurality of expected program trace samples; and the monitoring processor can be operable to compare the program trace signal of the at least one purported control processor to an expected program trace sample); and each reference activity of the plurality of reference activities corresponds to a reference program trace signal of the plurality of reference program trace signals (Moreno: par 0019; a control processor of the plurality of control processors as executing the command; par 0021; storing a plurality of expected program trace samples; and the monitoring processor can be operable to compare the program trace signal of the at least one purported control processor to an expected program trace sample).
Regarding Claim 13;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
Moreno discloses wherein: the at least one device processor comprises a first device processor and at least another device processor (Moreno: par 0075; the monitoring system monitors three control processors, all of which are connected to a local network [] although the control processors are shown as being ECUs, any embedded computing system can be monitored by the monitoring system); and the at least one monitoring processor is operable to further determine the score associated with the at least one reference activity for the first device processor based on a comparison of a program trace signal of the first device processor with a program trace signal of the at least another device processor (Moreno: par 0096; comparing the actual program trace signal of the at least one purported control processor to an expected program trace sample. For example, expected program trace samples can relate to execution of various program code such as but not limited to actions such as transmitting a message, processing a message, and other commands or actions that may be executed in response to a message. the monitoring processor can determine the command included in the message or action based on the message; par 0099; the program trace signal of the purported control processor relative to the communication can involve machine learning techniques. In some embodiments, the system can include a supervised learning engine or machine learning classifier trained to recognize expected program trace samples. As noted above, expected program trace samples can relate to execution of various program code);
LESSO further discloses determine the score (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range of values for the predetermined microphone parameter. The comparison module output an indication of whether the spectral parameters are a sufficient match for the relevant predetermined microphone parameter [] determine a score based on how similar the determined parameters are to the predetermined microphone parameter).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 1, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 1, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 2, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 2, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 3, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 3, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 3.
Regarding Claim 17;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 4, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 4, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 4.
Regarding Claim 18;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 5, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 5, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 5.
Regarding Claim 19;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 6, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 6, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 6.
Regarding Claim 24;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 11, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 11, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 11.
Regarding Claim 25;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 12, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 12, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 12.
Regarding Claim 26;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 13, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 13, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 13.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (US 20200366692) in view of LESSO et al. (US 20200286492), and further in view of Le et al. (“Le,” US 20220391532, filed on 06/07/2021).
Regarding Claim 7;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 6,
The combination of Moreno and Peter disclose all the limitations as recited above, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the other computing device comprises one or more of an intrusion detection system (IDS), a security information and event management system (SIEM system), or a security orchestration, automation, and response system (SOAR system).
However, in an analogous art, Le discloses security risk system/method that includes:
wherein the other computing device comprises one or more of an intrusion detection system (IDS), a security information and event management system (SIEM system), or a security orchestration, automation, and response system (SOAR system) (Le: par 0066; gather (or otherwise obtain from other data sources) information about available cloud platforms, topologies and capabilities. Typically, cloud security may be implemented and enforced with various techniques that include, without limitation, virtual perimeter networks (DMZs), network segregation, storage isolation, Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) deployment, Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) deployment, reverse proxies, firewalls, SSL communication, configuration with existing SIEM, multi-factor authentication, risk-based authentication, and others).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Le with the method/system of Moreno and LESSO to include wherein the other computing device comprises one or more of an intrusion detection system (IDS), a security information and event management system (SIEM system), or a security orchestration, automation, and response system (SOAR system). One would have been motivated to Base at least in part on the host interface risk scores and the data sensitivity scores, one or more containers are automatically scheduled for placement on the set of hosts to minimize security risk for the set of hosts (Le: abstract).
Regarding Claim 20;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 7, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 7, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 7.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (US 20200366692) in view of LESSO et al. (US 20200286492), and further in view of Whaley et al. (“Whaley,” US 20180181741, published 06/28/2018).
Regarding Claim 8;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
LESSO discloses wherein the at least one monitoring processor is operable to: receive a query for a score associated with a particular reference activity of the at least one reference activity (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range of values for the predetermined microphone parameter. The comparison module output an indication of whether the spectral parameters are a sufficient match for the relevant predetermined microphone parameter [] determine a score based on how similar the determined parameters are to the predetermined microphone parameter); compare the at least one program trace signal with the reference program trace signal corresponding to the particular reference activity to determine a score associated with the particular reference activity (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range of values for the predetermined microphone parameter. The comparison module output an indication of whether the spectral parameters are a sufficient match for the relevant predetermined microphone parameter [] determine a score based on how similar the determined parameters are to the predetermined microphone parameter); and generate the notification in response to receiving the query, the notification comprising the score associated with the particular reference activity (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range of values for the predetermined microphone parameter. The comparison module output an indication of whether the spectral parameters are a sufficient match for the relevant predetermined microphone parameter [] determine a score based on how similar the determined parameters are to the predetermined microphone parameter; determination block may provide a positive verification if the comparison indicates that all determined parameters are a sufficient match for the predetermined microphone parameters and/or if a determined score or distance measure is within an acceptable range and otherwise may provide a negative verification).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose receive a score associated with a particular reference activity of the at least one reference activity as recited above, but do not explicitly disclose receive a query for a score.
However, in an analogous art, Whaley discloses collecting sensor data system/method that includes:
receive a query for a score (Whaley: par 0061; receives a security score from the query component in response to the query. Then, the system determines whether the security score is greater than a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Whaley with the method/system of Moreno and LESSO to include receive a query for a score. One would have been motivated to analyze using a model trained with sensor data previously obtained from the portable electronic device while the user was in control of the portable electronic device (Whaley: abstract).
Regarding Claim 21;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 8, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 8, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 8.
Claims 9-10 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (US 20200366692) in view of LESSO et al. (US 20200286492), and further in view of Heino et al. (“Heino,” US 6598003 B1, published on 07/22/2003).
Regarding Claim 9;
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose the system of claim 1,
Moreno wherein the at least one monitoring processor is operable to: determine whether the score associated with the at least one reference activity correlates to data of the at least one device processor (Moreno: par 0096; comparing the actual program trace signal of the at least one purported control processor to an expected program trace sample. For example, expected program trace samples can relate to execution of various program code such as but not limited to actions such as transmitting a message, processing a message, and other commands or actions that may be executed in response to a message. the monitoring processor can determine the command included in the message or action based on the message; par 0099; the program trace signal of the purported control processor relative to the communication can involve machine learning techniques. In some embodiments, the system can include a supervised learning engine or machine learning classifier trained to recognize expected program trace samples. As noted above, expected program trace samples can relate to execution of various program code); and generate the notification in response to determining that the score associated with the at least one reference activity does not correlate to the data (Moreno: par 0105; In the event that the control processor of the purported transmitter of the message is classified as having been transmitting during the communication [] the monitoring processor can generate an anomaly notification).
LESSO further discloses determine a score (LESSO: par 0155; determine if the determined spectral parameter from the first signal is a match for relevant characteristic parameter, i.e. whether the parameters value are the same, within a certain defined tolerance, or whether the determined spectral parameter is within an acceptable range [] determination block may provide a positive verification if the comparison indicates that all determined parameters are a sufficient match for the predetermined microphone parameters and/or if a determined score or distance measure is within an acceptable range and otherwise may provide a negative verification).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
The combination of Moreno and LESSO disclose determine whether the score associated with the at least one reference activity correlates to data of the at least one device processor; generate the notification in response to determining that the score associated with the at least one reference activity does not correlate to data as recited above, but do not explicitly disclose nominal channel data.
However, in an analogous art, Heino discloses condition monitoring system/method that includes:
nominal channel data (Heino: Col 9, lines 54-56; generated, a log entry is appended to the event log file including the following information: date/time stamp; event type - Nominal; channel; nominal voltage data filename).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Heino with the method/system of Moreno and LESSO to include nominal channel data. One would have been motivated to event digital data is detected by classifying the data and analyzing the data based upon the class with as few data points as is needed (Heino: abstract).
Regarding Claim 10;
The combination of Moreno, LESSO, and Heino disclose the system of claim 9,
Heino wherein the nominal channel data comprises one or more of event data logged at the at least one device processor or telemetry data measured at the at least one device processor (Heino: Col 9, lines 54-56; generated, a log entry is appended to the event log file including the following information: date/time stamp; event type - Nominal; channel; nominal voltage data filename).
The motivation is the same that of claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 22;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 9, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 9, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 9.
Regarding Claim 23;
This Claim recites a method that perform the same steps as system of Claim 10, and has limitations that are similar to Claim 10, thus are rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6644. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Luu Pham can be reached on (571)270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights