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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11720231, in view of Ricci (US20140309806).
Claims 1, 8, 15 of instant invention
claims 1, 8, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11720231
A system, and corresponding method, comprising:
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and memory that stores a plurality of instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to: monitor user activities based on data collected by at least one sensor of a vehicle;
a user interface configured to receive inputs from a user to control the system;
present user selectable options via a vehicle user interface;
at least one sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of activities;
transmit, to a computing system, sensor data regarding a set of user activities,
and a processor configured to:
predict, based on the sensor data, and the inputs from the user, an operation to be requested by the user; and
wherein the sensor data is collected by the sensor, and
wherein the computing system is configured to
extract features from the set of user activities and generate a prediction model, and to
identify a predicted option based on the prediction model;
automatically implement the predicted option when a confidence level of the predicted option is higher than a predetermined threshold;
adjust, based on the predicted operation, the user interface in determination of whether to perform the operation.
instruct the vehicle user interface to present a notification of the implementation of the predicted option, the notification including a selection for overriding the implementation of the predicted option; and cancel the implementation of the predicted option upon the selection being invoked.
Claims 1, 8, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11720231 does not specifically show: authenticate the user based on the inputs from the user.
However, In the same field of invention, Ricci teaches: assisting vehicle occupants. Ricci further teaches: authenticate the user based on the inputs from the user (¶ [0825]) (e.g., Authentication can be performed by any suitable technique and using any suitable input, such as by … biometrics (such as a fingerprint image of the occupant sensed by the occupant touching a touchscreen display).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of claims 1, 8, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11720231 and Ricci before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Ricci with the method as taught by claims 1, 8, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11720231.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to enable eligible rights, privileges, settings and configurations set forth in the corresponding account would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Ricci (¶ [0829]).
Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11231834. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are broader than claims 1, 7, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11231834.
Claims 1, 8, 15 of instant invention
Claims 1, 7, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11231834
1. A system comprising:
1. A method comprising:
a user interface configured to receive inputs from a user to control the system;
receiving user input data from a first input system of a vehicle user interface;
at least one sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of activities;
presenting user selectable options and prompting user action via a first output system of the vehicle user interface;
transmitting, via a communication interface, to a computing system, a series of user input data received from at least the first input system;
extracting, at the computing system, features from the series of user input data;
generating, at the computing system, a prediction model based on a first cluster of features;
extracting a second cluster of features;
establishing a confidence level of the second cluster of features against the prediction model;
and a processor configured to:
predict, based on the sensor data, and the inputs from the user, an operation to be requested by the user; and .
identifying at least one predicted option based on the prediction model when the confidence level is higher than a predetermined threshold;
adjust, based on the predicted operation, the user interface in determination of whether to perform the operation
and instructing the first output system to present the at least one predicted option.
Claims 1, 7, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11231834 does not specifically show: authenticate the user based on the inputs from the user.
However, In the same field of invention, Ricci teaches: assisting vehicle occupants. Ricci further teaches: authenticate the user based on the inputs from the user (¶ [0825]) (e.g., Authentication can be performed by any suitable technique and using any suitable input, such as by … biometrics (such as a fingerprint image of the occupant sensed by the occupant touching a touchscreen display).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of claims 1, 7, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11231834 and Ricci before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Ricci with the method as taught by claims 1, 7, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11231834.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to enable eligible rights, privileges, settings and configurations set forth in the corresponding account would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Ricci (¶ [0829]).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine (e.g., a system).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“authenticate the user based on the inputs from the user;
predict, based on the sensor data and the inputs from the user, an operation to be requested by the user;”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations
“A system comprising:
at least one sensor configured to
a processor configured to:”
are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation
“generate sensor data indicative of activities
adjust, based on the predicted operation, the user interface.”
are additional elements that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional elements are directed to performing repetitive calculations and/or electronic recordkeeping and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and/or mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and/or insignificant application, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“determine whether to perform the predicted operation is-based on the confidence level”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations
“the processor is further configured to determine”
are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation
“wherein the predicted operation has a confidence level”
Is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to performing repetitive calculations and/or electronic recordkeeping and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and/or mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and/or insignificant application, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“wherein the predicted operation has a confidence level”
“determine whether to perform the predicted operation is-based on the confidence level”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations
“the processor is further configured to determine”
are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“automatically perform the operation without human intervention”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations
“wherein the processor is further configured to automatically perform the operation”
are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“present the predicted operation to the user”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“wherein the processor is further configured to present”
is additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“wherein the sensor data includes data regarding first user input for operating a vehicle”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation
“wherein the first user input is provided by the user without using the user interface”
Is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory and/or mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and/or insignificant application, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“detect a location of the user in a vehicle”
“and the sensor data includes the location of the user”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“wherein the at least one sensor includes a motion sensor to detect”
is additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“further comprising a prediction model configured to predict the operation”
“determine whether the user accepts the predicted operation; and in response to determining that the user accepts the predicted operation, increase a confidence level of the prediction model”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“wherein the processor is further configured to: determine”
is additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (e.g., a method).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“authenticating the user based on first user inputs of the series
generating, using […] extracted features, a prediction model;
identifying, using the prediction model based on second user inputs of the series, a predicted option”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation
extracting features from the first user inputs of the series;
customizing, based on the predicted option, a user interface
are additional elements that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional elements are directed to performing repetitive calculations and/or electronic recordkeeping and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and/or mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and/or insignificant application, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (a method).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“wherein the series of user inputs is entered by the user”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“inputs is entered by the user into the user interface”
is additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (a method).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“wherein the prediction model is a first prediction model, the method further comprising generating a second prediction model based on third user inputs, wherein the second prediction model is generated in parallel with identifying the predicted option using the first prediction model.”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (a method).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“wherein at least one of the extracted features is a sequence of user input in navigating menu items”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“navigating menu items in the user interface.”
is additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (a method).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“wherein generating the prediction model comprises performing a cluster analysis on features to identify a cluster of similar features”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process (a method).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“allowing the user to override the predicted option”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation
“further comprising presenting a notification to the user regarding the predicted option”
is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or electronic recordkeeping and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and/or mere data gathering and/or insignificant application, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine (e.g., a system).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations
“collect similar features into a cluster”
“authenticate the user based on the inputs from the user;”
“generate a prediction model based on the inputs from the user and the cluster”
“predict, using the prediction model based on user activity in the vehicle, a predicted option”
are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations
“A system comprising:
“at least one sensor of a vehicle configured to”
“a feature extractor configured to extract features”
“a user interface configured to receive inputs”
“a machine learning module configured to collect similar features”
“a processor configured to”
are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation
“generate sensor data”
“extract features based on the sensor data”
“receive inputs from a user to control operation of the vehicle”
“present the predicted option to the user.”
are additional elements that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional elements are directed to performing repetitive calculations and/or electronic recordkeeping and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and/or mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and/or insignificant application, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine (e.g., a system).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“wherein the prediction model has a confidence level determined based on an average distance between features in the cluster”
is the abstract idea of a mathematical formula or equation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine (e.g., a system).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“wherein the predicted option is presented via the user interface”
is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine (e.g., a system).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“wherein the predicted option is presented via the user interface”
is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine (e.g., a system).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“identify the user, and customize the user interface for the identified user”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“wherein the processor is further configured to identify […] and customize […]”
is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine (e.g., a system).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“wherein the feature extractor is further configured to search for a sequence of events regarding operation of the vehicle and corresponding user settings”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“search […] in the user interface”
is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation
“wherein the sequence of events is used for training the prediction model. ”
is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to performing repetitive calculations and/or storing and retrieving information in memory and/or mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and/or insignificant application, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine (e.g., a system).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation
“to identify at least one rule that characterizes at least one of the features”
is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation
“wherein the machine learning module includes a neural network configured to identify”
is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
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.
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
Note: In order to better show what is and is not taught by the references, Examiner shows some words underlined. Words that are underlined indicate teachings of the cited reference, and may not specifically be claimed.
Claims 1-12, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen et al. (US20170031575, Dotan-Cohen) in view of Ricci (US20140309806).
As to claim 1:
Dotan-Cohen shows a system comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of activities (¶ [0034]) (e.g., a sensor may include a function, routine, component, or combination thereof for sensing, detecting, or otherwise obtaining information such as user data from a data source 104a, and may be embodied as hardware, software, or both);
a user interface configured to receive inputs from a user to control the system (¶ [0016], [0093]) (e.g., monitor user interactions with various applications across multiple devices to ascertain patterns between user interactions and subsequent actions; An NUI implements any combination of speech recognition, touch and stylus recognition, facial recognition, biometric recognition, gesture recognition both on screen and adjacent to the screen, air gestures, head and eye tracking, and touch recognition);
and a processor configured to:
predict, based on the sensor data, and the inputs of the user, an operation to be requested by the user (¶ [0026]) (e.g., running a probable action inference engine 270, that identifies a probable action.); and
adjust, based on the predicted operation, the user interface (¶ [0019]) (e.g., utilize the probable action sequences to generate customized user interface features such as customized menu actions.).
Dotan-Cohen fails to specifically show: authenticating the user based on the inputs from the user.
In the same field of invention, Ricci teaches: assisting vehicle occupants. Ricci further teaches: authenticating the user based on the inputs from the user (¶ [0825]) (e.g., Authentication can be performed by any suitable technique and using any suitable input, such as by … biometrics (such as a fingerprint image of the occupant sensed by the occupant touching a touchscreen display).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dotan-Cohen and Ricci before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Ricci with the system as taught by Dotan-Cohen.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to enable eligible rights, privileges, settings and configurations set forth in the corresponding account would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Ricci (¶ [0829]).
As to claim 2, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the predicted operation has a confidence level, and the determination of whether to perform the operation is based on the confidence level (¶ [0080]) (e.g., the user performs both the initial interaction in the probable action in sequence above a threshold number of times to establish a particular confidence score that the two actions are correlated).
As to claim 3, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to automatically perform the operation without human intervention (¶ [0054]) (e.g., action initiating component 274 may also instruct the user device to automatically initiate the appropriate computer application, i.e., without affirmative user action to facilitate such initiation.)
As to claim 4, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to present the predicted operation to the user (¶ [0019]) (e.g., The technology described herein could replace the “new email” action with a customized action button stating “new email to Sam,” where Sam is the name of a person appearing in the recently downloaded photos).
As to claim 5, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes data regarding first user input for operating a vehicle (¶ [0034]) (e.g., vehicle signal data), and
wherein the first user input is provided by the user without using the user interface (¶ [0034]) (e.g., user data may include data that is sensed or determined from one or more sensors (referred to herein as sensor data), such as location information of mobile device(s), etc.).
As to claim 6, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor includes a motion sensor to detect a location of the user in a vehicle, and the sensor data includes the user location (¶ [0034]) (e.g., user data may include data that is sensed or determined from one or more sensors (referred to herein as sensor data), such as location information of mobile device(s), etc.).
As to claim 7, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a prediction model configured to predict the operation,
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine whether the user accepts the predicted operation; and in response determining that the user accepts the predicted operation, increase a confidence level of the prediction model (¶ [0051]) (e.g., The confidence score may be based on the strength of the inference, which may be determined by the number of observations (e.g., observations of a particular user interaction), the number of features associated with the interaction, how frequently the user's actions are consistent with past inferred actions).
As to claim 8:
Dotan-Cohen shows a method comprising:
receiving a series of user inputs from the user(¶ [0016]) (e.g., monitor user interactions with various applications across multiple devices to ascertain patterns between user interactions and subsequent actions);
extracting features from first user inputs of the series (¶ [0034]) (e.g., User data may be received from a variety of sources where the data may be available in a variety of formats. For example, in some embodiments, user data received via user-data collection component 214 may be determined via one or more sensors, which may be on or associated with one or more user devices (such as user device 102a));
generating, using the extracted features, a prediction model (¶ [0036]) (Information about user activity history from the other users may be relied upon for inferring probable actions for the given user.);
identifying, using the prediction model based on second user inputs of the series, a predicted option (¶ [0019]) (e.g., utilize the probable action sequences to generate customized user interface features such as customized menu actions.); and
customizing, based on the predicted option, a user interface (¶ [0019]) (e.g., utilize the probable action sequences to generate customized user interface features such as customized menu actions.).
Dotan-Cohen fails to specifically show: authenticating the user based on first user inputs of the series.
In the same field of invention, Ricci teaches: assisting vehicle occupants. Ricci further teaches: authenticating the user based on first user inputs of the series (¶ [0825]) (e.g., Authentication can be performed by any suitable technique and using any suitable input, such as by … biometrics (such as a fingerprint image of the occupant sensed by the occupant touching a touchscreen display).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dotan-Cohen and Ricci before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Ricci with the method as taught by Dotan-Cohen.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to enable eligible rights, privileges, settings and configurations set forth in the corresponding account would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Ricci (¶ [0829]).
As to claim 9, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The method of claim 8, wherein the series of user inputs is entered by a user into the user interface (¶ [0036]) (e.g., Information about user activity history –entered a user interface---from the other users may be relied upon for inferring probable actions for the given user.).
As to claim 10, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The method of claim 8, wherein the prediction model is a first prediction model (¶ [0050]) (e.g., probable action inference engine 270 is generally responsible for determining probable or likely actions of a user based upon received user-interaction-related information determined from user activity monitor 280. ),
the method further comprising generating a second prediction model based on third user inputs, wherein the second prediction model is generated in parallel with identifying the predicted option using the first prediction model (¶ [0051]) (e.g., One or more inference algorithms may be applied to the user-interaction-related information to determine a set of one or more probable user actions).
As to claim 11, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The method of claim 8, wherein at least one of the extracted features is a sequence of user input in navigating menu items in the user interface (¶ [0036]) (User activity monitor 280 is generally responsible for monitoring user data for information that may be used for determining user activity information regarding user interactions, which may include identifying and/or tracking features (sometimes referred to herein as “variables”) or other information regarding specific user interactions and related contextual information).
As to claim 12, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The method of claim 8, wherein generating the prediction model comprises performing a cluster analysis on features to identify a cluster of similar features (¶ [0036]) (e.g., User activity monitor 280 is generally responsible for monitoring user data for information that may be used for determining user activity information regarding user interactions, which may include identifying and/or tracking features (sometimes referred to herein as “variables”) or other information regarding specific user interactions and related contextual information; For example, for a given user, a set of other users similar to the given user may be identified, based on having features or characteristics in common with the given user. Information about user activity history from the other users may be relied upon for inferring probable actions for the given user.).
As to claim 15:
Dotan-Cohen shows a system comprising: at least one sensor of a vehicle configured to generate sensor data (¶ [0027], [0034]) (e.g., User devices 102a and 102b through 102n may comprise any type of computing device capable of use by a user. For example, a vehicle computer system; , a sensor may include a function, routine, component, or combination thereof for sensing, detecting, or otherwise obtaining information such as user data from a data source 104a, and may be embodied as hardware, software, or both)
a feature extractor configured to extract features based on the sensor data (¶ [0044]) (e.g., Contextual information extractor 284, in general, is responsible for determining contextual information related to the user interaction (identified by user interaction identifier 282 or user activity monitor 280), such as context features or variables associated with user interaction, related information, which may include content associated with the user interaction);
a user interface configured to receive inputs from a user to control operation of the vehicle (¶ [0016]) (e.g., monitor user interactions with various applications across multiple devices to ascertain patterns between user interactions and subsequent actions);
a machine learning module configured to collect similar features into a cluster (¶ [0036]) (e.g., User activity monitor 280 is generally responsible for monitoring user data for information that may be used for determining user activity information regarding user interactions, which may include identifying and/or tracking features (sometimes referred to herein as “variables”) or other information regarding specific user interactions and related contextual information; For example, for a given user, a set of other users similar to the given user may be identified, based on having features or characteristics in common with the given user. Information about user activity history from the other users may be relied upon for inferring probable actions for the given user.); and
a processor configured to: generate a prediction model based on inputs from the user and the cluster (¶ [0037], [0050]) (e.g., information determined by user activity monitor 280 may be provided to probable action inference engine 270 ; , probable action inference engine 270 is generally responsible for determining probable or likely actions of a user based upon received user-interaction-related information determined from user activity monitor 280. );
predict, using the prediction model based on user activity in the vehicle, a predicted option (¶ [0054]) (e.g., the terms “predicted action” and “probable action” may be used interchangeably within this disclosure and have the same meaning.); and
present the predicted option to the user (¶ [0084]) (e.g., , an action menu that includes a customized menu option to perform the probable action is output for display. The customized menu action compris[es] content extracted from the user interaction.).
Dotan-Cohen fails to specifically show: authenticate the user based on the inputs from the user.
In the same field of invention, Ricci teaches: assisting vehicle occupants. Ricci further teaches: authenticate the user based on the inputs from the user (¶ [0825]) (e.g., Authentication can be performed by any suitable technique and using any suitable input, such as by … biometrics (such as a fingerprint image of the occupant sensed by the occupant touching a touchscreen display).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dotan-Cohen and Ricci before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Ricci with the system as taught by Dotan-Cohen.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to enable eligible rights, privileges, settings and configurations set forth in the corresponding account would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Ricci (¶ [0829]).
As to claim 17, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The system of claim 15, wherein the predicted option is presented via the user interface (¶ [0084]) (e.g., , an action menu that includes a customized menu option to perform the probable action is output for display. The customized menu action compris[es] content extracted from the user interaction.).
As to claim 18, Dotan-Cohen further shows:
The system of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to identify the (i.e., given) user, and customize the user interface for the identified user (¶ [0018], [0081]) (e.g., text or other data associated with the user interaction may be extracted and stored as semantic data for use in generating a customized menu item and to help an application complete the probable action for the user; Information about user activity history from the other users may be relied upon for inferring probable actions for the given user. This may be particularly useful in situations where little user activity history exists for the given –i.e., identified-- user, such as where the user is a new user.).
As to claim 19, Dotan-Cohen shows:
The system of claim 15, wherein the feature extractor is further configured to search for a sequence of events regarding operation (¶ [0036]) (User activity monitor 280 is generally responsible for monitoring user data for information that may be used for determining user activity information regarding user interactions, which may include identifying and/or tracking features (sometimes referred to herein as “variables”) or other information regarding specific user interactions and related contextual information)
of the vehicle (¶ [0027]) (e.g., User devices 102a and 102b through 102n may comprise any type of computing device capable of use by a user. For example, a vehicle computer system) and corresponding user settings in the user interface, and
wherein the sequence of events is used for training the prediction model (¶ [0037], [0050]) (e.g., information determined by user activity monitor 280 may be provided to probable action inference engine 270 ; , probable action inference engine 270 is generally responsible for determining probable or likely actions of a user based upon received user-interaction-related information determined from user activity monitor 280. ).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen et al. (US20170031575, Dotan-Cohen) in view of Ricci (US20140309806), further in view of Kottler et al. (US20220326970, Kottler).
As to claim 13:
Dotan-Cohen, Ricci show a method substantially as claimed, as specified above.
Dotan-Cohen further shows: further comprising presenting a notification to a user regarding the predicted option (¶ [0058]) (e.g., The content may be provided to the user as a personalized menu (or item within a menu) in regards to an application associated with the predicted user action; a notification, which may comprise a recommendation, request, or suggestion, (including, for example a notification item in a menu of notifications); or notification, such as described in connection to presentation component 218.)
Dotan-Cohen, Ricci fails to specifically show: allowing the user to override the predicted option.
In the same field of invention, Kottler teaches: user interface for providing recommendations based on user entered observations. Kottler further teaches: presenting a notification to a user regarding the predicted option, and allowing the user to override the predicted option (¶ [0055]) (e.g., Upon receiving (at block 800) a result, recommendation or action from the rules engine 134 in response to the sent observations 302, … the report generator 110 displays (at block 804) a dialog box, such as the alert notification dialog box 220 in FIG. 2b, showing the received machine determined recommendations 222 and graphical controls 224, 226 to allow the user to accept or reject, respectively, the new result in the dialog box 220).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dotan-Cohen, Ricci and Kottler before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Kottler with the method as taught by Dotan-Cohen, Ricci.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to provide a user preferred classification and/or preferred proposition based on the current content rendered in the user interface …to retrain the rules engine 134 and/or classifier program 132 to further optimize operations and results would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Kottler (¶ [0057]).
Claims 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen et al. (US20170031575, Dotan-Cohen) in view of Ricci (US20140309806), further in view of Hotchkies et al (US10311371, Hotchkies).
As to claim 16:
Dotan-Cohen, Ricci show a system substantially as claimed, as specified above.
Dotan-Cohen fail to specifically show: wherein the prediction model has a confidence level determined based on an average distance between features in the cluster.
In the same field of invention, Hotchkies teaches: machine learning based content delivery. Hotchkies further teaches: a prediction model having a confidence level determined based on an average distance between features in a cluster (c. 15, l. 28-34) (e.g., select[ing] a specified number of groups from the top of the list and assign a respective confidence level (e.g., a value inversely proportional to a corresponding average distance and further weighted by a corresponding group size) for associating the newly obtained content request with each of the top groups.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dotan-Cohen, Ricci and Hotchkies before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Hotchkies with the system as taught by Dotan-Cohen, Ricci.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to determines one or more clusters or groups of historical content requests that are applicable to newly obtained content requests would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Hotchkies (c. 15, l. 20-22).
As to claim 20:
Dotan-Cohen, Ricci show a system substantially as claimed, as specified above.
Dotan-Cohen, Ricci fail to specifically show: wherein the machine learning module includes a neural network configured to identify at least one rule that characterizes at least one of the features.
In the same field of invention, Hotchkies teaches: machine learning based content delivery. Hotchkies further teaches: wherein the machine learning module includes a neural network configured to identify at least one rule that characterizes at least one of the features (c. 3, l. 23-34) (e.g., The model can be built based on unsupervised clustering of past requests. For example, the cache management service may analyze content requests received by the content provider over a specified period of time and cluster the past requests based on a criterion that assesses their commonalities. The criterion may be a formula defining a distance among multiple requests. For example, requests for a same resource and submitted during a small time window on weekends by devices within a geographic region may have a small distance among them based on the formula, and therefore can form a cluster.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dotan-Cohen, Ricci and Hotchkies before the effective filing date of the invention, to have combined the teachings of Hotchkies with the system as taught by Dotan-Cohen, Ricci.
One would have been motivated to make such combination because a way to route incoming content requests to appropriate content serving computing devices would have been obtained and desired, as expressly taught by Hotchkies (c. 3, l. 18-20).
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner reiterates that references to specific columns, figures or lines should not be limiting in any way. The entire reference provides disclosure related to the claimed invention.
1) Applicant argues:
In particular, claim 8 recites receiving a series of user inputs from a user. The user is authenticated based on first user inputs of this series. Moreover, features are extracted from these same first user inputs. The extracted features are used to generate a prediction model used in identifying a predicted option. A user interface is customized based on this predicted option.
It should be noted that the same first user inputs are used for both authenticating the user and the prediction model. The prediction model is based on features extracted from these first user inputs. The user interface is customized using the prediction model. The prior art does not teach or suggest using the same user inputs for both authenticating and customizing a user interface.
Independent claims 1 and 15 are patentable at least for similar reasons.
Examiner disagrees.
The rejection of this claim makes clear that Dotan-Cohen shows at ¶ [0034] that a sensor may include a function, routine, component, or combination thereof for sensing, detecting, or otherwise obtaining information such as user data from a data source 104a, and may be embodied as hardware, software, or both. Dotan-Cohen further shows at ¶ [0093] that part of this data may include touch and stylus recognition.
Applicant’s arguments do not seem to disagree with this interpretation of sensor.
Applicant acknowledges that Dotan-Cohen at ¶ [0026] shows server 106 may run a probable action inference engine 270 and receive communication records from the user devices. Therefore, it seems that Applicant agrees that Dotan-Cohen shows predicting an operation based on received communication records from the user devices. Since Dotan-Cohen shows at ¶ [0034] that the communication records from the user devices may be reasonably interpreted as sensor data, Dotan-Cohen identically shows predicting an operation based on sensor data.
Ricci further teaches: authenticating the user based on the inputs from the user (¶ [0825]) (e.g., Authentication can be performed by any suitable technique and using any suitable input, such as by … biometrics (such as a fingerprint image of the occupant sensed by the occupant touching a touchscreen display).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably combine Dotan-Cohen’s teachings of sensor data including touch recognition and Ricci’s teachings of touchscreen data including biometrics to arrive at Applicant’s claimed “same first user inputs”, for example, touch recognition data, being “used for both authenticating the user and the prediction model”, for example, to both authenticate the user and to predict a user operation.
Therefore, Dotan-Cohen in view or Ricci reasonably renders obvious Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gee [U.S. 9507413 ], Tailoring vehicle human interface
Grossman [U.S. 9513698], controlling function of a vehicle based on location
Bates et al. [U.S. 20210061471], PREDICTIVE PREFERENCE SELECTION FOR IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordany Núñez whose telephone number is (571)272-2753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 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, Cesar Paula can be reached on 5712724128. 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.
/JORDANY NUNEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
3/15/2026