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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10-12 recite recite “generating prompting data in dependence on the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in the second environment” more than once. It is unclear whether the repeated recitation is intended to require separate acts of generating prompting data or merely restates the same limitation. The duplication introduces ambiguity as to the scope of the claim.
Correction is required to clarify whether a single instance or multiple distinct instances of the recited step are intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a computer readable storage medium without language indicating it is non-transitory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914).
Regarding claim 1, Jacobi discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
with a user engaged in a user session within a first environment (paragraph 31, lines 1-3: “The Amazon.com Web site includes functionality for allowing users to search, browse, and make purchases from an online catalog …. Using a shopping cart feature of the site, users can add and remove items to/from a personal shopping cart which is persistent over multiple sessions”; users interacting with an electronic catalog system constitutes a user interaction environment),
examining historical data of the user (paragraph 36, lines 4-5: “the mappings are generating by analyzing user purchase histories to identify correlations between purchases of particular items”),
wherein the examining historical data of the user includes examining historical data of a previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in a second environment (Abstract, lines 1-2: “A computer-implemented service recommends items to a user based on items previously selected by the user, such as items previously purchased, viewed, or placed in an electronic shopping cart by the user.”; the historical item selection data is collected from previous user interactions with the catalog system); and
provisioning (or recommending) an article (corresponding to an item) of the user within the first environment to include a functional behavior (paragraph 28, lines 1-3: “The various features and methods of the invention will now be described in the context of a recommendation service, including two specific implementations thereof, that is used to recommend book titles, music titles, video titles, and other types of items to individual users of the Amazon.com Web site”; the recommendation process dynamically identifies items derived from historical user data which corresponds to a functional behavior),
wherein the article of the user within the first environment includes an article type classification in common with the previously recognized article (paragraph 35, lines 1-2: “The recommendations are generated using a table which maps items to lists of ‘similar’ items (‘similar items lists’), without the need for users to rate any items”; the similar items lists corresponds to an article type classification in common with the previously recognized article), and
wherein the provisioning the article (or recommending of an item) to include the functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of the examining the historical data of the user (paragraph 71, lines 1-4: recommended items are determined by analyzing historical item selection data and identifying items related to those previously selected).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Kumar et al. (US 11,301,783).
Regarding claim 2, Jacobi fails to disclose that the examining the historical data of the user is performed responsively to a detection of the article of the user in the first environment.
However, in an analogous art, Kumar discloses that examining historical data of a user is performed responsively to a detection of an article (or item) of the user in a first environment (corresponding to an inventory location) (col. 6, lines 5-7: “if the users are wearing or otherwise possess an item identifier, the item identifier may be detected as the user reaches into the inventory location”; col. 7, line 67- col. 8, line 6: “As each user enters the materials handling facility, the inventory management system 150 may identify the user (e.g., facial recognition, user ID, user provided information). Upon identifying the user, information (e.g., item retrieval history, view history, purchase history) may be retrieved from a data store.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Kumar for the purpose of providing the identity needed to access the associated historical profile.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Aravamudan et al. (US 2013/0325843).
Regarding claim 3, Jacobi fails to disclose that the provisioning the article to include the functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in the second environment.
However, in an analogous art, Aravamudan discloses that provisioning an article (in a first environment) to include a functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining historical data (paragraph 52, lines 1-2: “Preferred embodiments of the invention capture user preferences for a single user or a family of users based on historical observations of the users' activities and by use of a statistical learning model”) of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (Abstract, lines 1-12: “A method of selecting and presenting content on a first system based on user preferences learned on a second system is provided …. The method includes analyzing the selected items to learn the user's content preferences for the content of the second content system and determining a relationship between the content of the first and second content systems to determine preferences relevant to items of the first content system.”; the first system corresponds to the first environment and the second system corresponds to the second environment; preferences learned from user behavior on second system are used to determine what content to present on the first system.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Aravamudan for the purpose of providing consistent user personalization across environments.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625).
Regarding claim 4, Jacobi fails to disclose that the historical data of the user includes historical data of the article of the user within the first environment, wherein the provisioning the article to include the functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining the historical data of the article of the user within the first environment.
However, in an analogous art, Smith discloses that historical data of a user includes historical data of an article of the user within a first environment (or browsing session) (claim 1, lines 1-2: “during a browsing session: maintaining a history of products viewed by the user during the browsing session”), wherein provisioning (or selecting to present) the article to include a functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining the historical data of the article of the user within the first environment (claim 1, line 3: “selecting a set of additional products to present to the user based on the history of viewed products”; recommendations of content selection are based on items viewed or actions performed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Smith for the purpose of personalizing and optimizing the provisioning based on prior usage and improving efficiency and user relevance.
Regarding claim 7, Jacobi fails to disclose generating prompting data in dependence on the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in a second environment, wherein the prompting data prompts the user to activate the provisioning.
However, Smith discloses generating prompting data (corresponding to recommendations) in dependence on examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (paragraph 62, lines 4-5: “generate recommendations in accordance with the invention: (a) the user's purchase history, including dates of purchase, (b) a history of items recently viewed by the user”), wherein the prompting data prompts the user to activate a provisioning (paragraph 87, lines 5-6: “the recommendations are generated (based on the user's current and/or recent shopping cart contents) in real-time when the user initiates a display of a shopping cart”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Smith for the purpose of guiding the user to activate provisioning based on prior usage patterns and ensuring relevant functionality is enabled when needed.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Aravamudan et al. (US 2013/0325843), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625).
Regarding claim 5, Jacobi fails to disclose that the provisioning the article to include the functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in the second environment.
However, Aravamudan discloses that provisioning an article (in a first environment) to include a functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining historical data (paragraph 52, lines 1-2: “Preferred embodiments of the invention capture user preferences for a single user or a family of users based on historical observations of the users' activities and by use of a statistical learning model”) of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (Abstract, lines 1-12: “A method of selecting and presenting content on a first system based on user preferences learned on a second system is provided …. The method includes analyzing the selected items to learn the user's content preferences for the content of the second content system and determining a relationship between the content of the first and second content systems to determine preferences relevant to items of the first content system.”; the first system corresponds to the first environment and the second system corresponds to the second environment; preferences learned from user behavior on second system are used to determine what content to present on the first system.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Aravamudan for the purpose of providing consistent user personalization across environments.
The combination of Jacobi and Aravamudan fails to disclose that the historical data of the user includes historical data of the article of the user within the first environment, wherein the provisioning the article to include the functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining the historical data of the article of the user within the first environment.
However, Smith discloses generating prompting data (corresponding to recommendations) in dependence on examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (paragraph 62, lines 4-5: “generate recommendations in accordance with the invention: (a) the user's purchase history, including dates of purchase, (b) a history of items recently viewed by the user”), wherein the prompting data prompts the user to activate a provisioning (corresponding to viewing the product information page for an item) (paragraph 137, lines 1-2: “the user can select a link associated with one of the recommended items to view the product information page for that item.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi and Aravamudan by incorporating this feature taught in Smith for the purpose of personalizing and optimizing the provisioning based on prior usage and improving efficiency and user relevance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Acharya et al. (US 2005/0071741).
Regarding claim 6, Jacobi fails to disclose that the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in a second environment is performed responsively to a determination that the article of the user will be added to the first environment.
However, in an analogous art, Acharya discloses that examining historical data of a previously recognized article (corresponding to a document) of the user previously recognized in a second environment (corresponding to prior rankings) (paragraph 32, line 1: “History component 320 may gather history data associated with the documents”; paragraph 104, lines 1-2: “information relating to prior rankings of a document may be used to generate (or alter) a score associated with the document.”) is performed responsively to a determination that the article of the user will be added to a first environment (claim 47, lines 1-2: “analyzing the user maintained or generated data over time to identify at least one of trends to add … the document”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Acharya for the purpose of ensuring that the relevant historical information is considered at the moment the article is introduced in a new environment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625), and further in view of Charkraborti et al. (US 2009/0006373).
Regarding claim 8, Jacobi fails to disclose generating prompting data in dependence on the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in a second environment, wherein the prompting data prompts the user to activate the provisioning.
However, Smith discloses generating prompting data (corresponding to recommendations) in dependence on examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (paragraph 62, lines 4-5: “generate recommendations in accordance with the invention: (a) the user's purchase history, including dates of purchase, (b) a history of items recently viewed by the user”), wherein the prompting data prompts the user to activate a provisioning (corresponding to viewing the product information page for an item) (paragraph 167, lines 1-2: “the user can select a link associated with one of the recommended items to view the product information page for that item.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Smith for the purpose of guiding the user to activate provisioning based on prior usage patterns and ensuring relevant functionality is enabled when needed.
The combination of Jacobi and Smith fails to disclose that the prompting data specifies a first candidate functional behavior for selection by the user, wherein the prompting data specifies a second candidate functional behavior for selection by the user.
However, in an analogous art, Chakraborti discloses that prompting data specifies a first candidate functional behavior for selection by a user (paragraph 31, lines 1-4: “Some of the recommenders 112 may use particular types of behavior-based associations to select candidate items to recommend. As one example, one recommender may use purchase-based item associations, as generated by mining the purchase histories of large numbers of users, to select candidate items similar to those purchased or owned by the target user.”), wherein the prompting data specifies a second candidate functional behavior for selection by the user (paragraph 31, lines 4-7: “As another example, a particular recommender may use item-viewing based associations, as generated by mining the item viewing histories of large numbers of users, to select candidate items similar to those recently viewed by the target user.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi and Smith by incorporating this feature taught in Chakraborti for the purpose of enabling flexible selection of a preferred functional behavior and improving usability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625), and further in view of Charkraborti et al. (US 2009/0006373) and Ghuneim et al. (US 8,271,429).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobi fails to disclose generating prompting data in dependence on the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in a second environment, wherein the prompting data prompts the user to activate the provisioning.
However, Smith discloses generating prompting data (corresponding to recommendations) in dependence on examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (paragraph 62, lines 4-5: “generate recommendations in accordance with the invention: (a) the user's purchase history, including dates of purchase, (b) a history of items recently viewed by the user”), wherein the prompting data prompts the user to activate a provisioning (corresponding to viewing the product information page for an item) (paragraph 167, lines 1-2: “the user can select a link associated with one of the recommended items to view the product information page for that item.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Smith for the purpose of guiding the user to activate provisioning based on prior usage patterns and ensuring relevant functionality is enabled when needed.
The combination of Jacobi and Smith fails to disclose that the prompting data specifies a first candidate functional behavior for selection by the user, wherein the prompting data specifies a second candidate functional behavior for selection by the user.
However, in an analogous art, Chakraborti discloses that prompting data specifies a first candidate functional behavior for selection by a user (paragraph 31, lines 1-4: “Some of the recommenders 112 may use particular types of behavior-based associations to select candidate items to recommend. As one example, one recommender may use purchase-based item associations, as generated by mining the purchase histories of large numbers of users, to select candidate items similar to those purchased or owned by the target user.”), wherein the prompting data specifies a second candidate functional behavior for selection by the user (paragraph 31, lines 4-7: “As another example, a particular recommender may use item-viewing based associations, as generated by mining the item viewing histories of large numbers of users, to select candidate items similar to those recently viewed by the target user.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi and Smith by incorporating this feature taught in Chakraborti for the purpose of enabling flexible selection of a preferred functional behavior and improving usability.
The combination of Jacobi, Smith and Chakraborti fails to disclose that the provisioning is activated in response to the user selecting one of the first candidate functional behavior or the second candidate functional behavior specified by the prompting data.
However, in an analogous art, Ghuneim discloses that provisioning is activated (corresponding to associating a plugin) in response to a user selecting one of a first candidate functional behavior (corresponding to one or more data items relating to a subject matter to be monitored) or a second candidate functional behavior specified by a prompting data (corresponding to analytical graphical representations) (claim 1, lines 5-7: “an activation module for receiving each user's selection of one or more data items relating to a subject matter to be monitored from a client device associated with said each user over said communications network; and a data mining marshaller (DMM) module for associating a plugin to each data item selected by said plurality of users”; ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi, Smith and Chakraborti by incorporating this feature taught in Ghuneim for the purpose of ensuring that the provisioning reflects an explicit user choice among available functional options.
Claim 10 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625), and further in view of Charkraborti et al. (US 2009/0006373) and Fu (US 2018/0082229).
Regarding claim 10, Jacobi fails to disclose generating prompting data in dependence on the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in the second environment,
However, Smith discloses generating prompting data (corresponding to recommendations) in dependence on examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (paragraph 62, lines 4-5: “generate recommendations in accordance with the invention: (a) the user's purchase history, including dates of purchase, (b) a history of items recently viewed by the user”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Smith for the purpose of guiding the user to activate provisioning based on prior usage patterns and ensuring relevant functionality is enabled when needed.
The combination of Jacobi and Smith fails to disclose that the prompting data specifies the first candidate functional behavior and the second candidate functional behavior.
However, Chakraborti discloses that prompting data specifies a first candidate functional behavior and second candidate functional behavior (paragraph 31, lines 1-7: “As one example, one recommender may use purchase-based item associations … a particular recommender may use item-viewing based associations”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi and Smith by incorporating this feature taught in Chakraborti for the purpose of enabling flexible selection of a preferred functional behavior and improving usability.
The combination of Jacobi, Smith and Chakraborti fails to disclose that the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in a second environment includes identifying a first candidate functional behavior of the article, and identifying a second candidate functional behavior of the article, wherein the method includes evaluating security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior of the article, and evaluating security risk associated to the second candidate functional behavior of the article.
However, in an analogous art, Fu discloses that examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment includes identifying a first candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 23, lines 1-2: “At 120, at least one of a first mean or a first variance of each of the at least one type of the plurality of users' historical behavior data of the first time period is calculated”), and identifying a second candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 26, lines 1-2: “At 140, at least one of a second mean or a second variance of each of the at least one type of the plurality of users' historical behavior data of the second time period is calculated), wherein the method includes evaluating security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior of the article, and evaluating security risk associated to the second candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 27, lines 1-2: “At 150, a risk model is generated based on at least one of the historical behavior data of the first time period or the historical behavior data of the second time period”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi, Smith and Chakraborti by incorporating this feature taught in Fu for the purpose of enabling the selection of a functional behavior that balances functionality with acceptable security risk.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625), and further in view of Charkraborti et al. (US 2009/0006373), Fu (US 2018/0082229) and Liang et al. (US 2017/0366567).
Regarding claim 11, Jacobi fails to disclose generating prompting data in dependence on the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in the second environment,
However, Smith discloses generating prompting data (corresponding to recommendations) in dependence on examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (paragraph 62, lines 4-5: “generate recommendations in accordance with the invention: (a) the user's purchase history, including dates of purchase, (b) a history of items recently viewed by the user”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Smith for the purpose of guiding the user to activate provisioning based on prior usage patterns and ensuring relevant functionality is enabled when needed.
The combination of Jacobi and Smith fails to disclose that the prompting data specifies the first candidate functional behavior and the second candidate functional behavior.
However, Chakraborti discloses that prompting data specifies a first candidate functional behavior and second candidate functional behavior (paragraph 31, lines 1-7: “As one example, one recommender may use purchase-based item associations … a particular recommender may use item-viewing based associations”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi and Smith by incorporating this feature taught in Chakraborti for the purpose of enabling flexible selection of a preferred functional behavior and improving usability.
The combination of Jacobi, Smith and Chakraborti fails to disclose that the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in a second environment includes identifying a first candidate functional behavior of the article, and identifying a second candidate functional behavior of the article, wherein the method includes evaluating security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior of the article, and evaluating security risk associated to the second candidate functional behavior of the article.
However, Fu discloses that examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment includes identifying a first candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 23, lines 1-2: “At 120, at least one of a first mean or a first variance of each of the at least one type of the plurality of users' historical behavior data of the first time period is calculated”), and identifying a second candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 26, lines 1-2: “At 140, at least one of a second mean or a second variance of each of the at least one type of the plurality of users' historical behavior data of the second time period is calculated), wherein the method includes evaluating security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior of the article, and evaluating security risk associated to the second candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 27, lines 1-2: “At 150, a risk model is generated based on at least one of the historical behavior data of the first time period or the historical behavior data of the second time period”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi, Smith and Chakraborti by incorporating this feature taught in Fu for the purpose of enabling the selection of a functional behavior that balances functionality with acceptable security risk.
The combination of Jacobi, Smith, Chakraborti and Fu fails to disclose that the prompting data includes an indicator of a determined security risk of the first candidate functional behavior, and wherein the prompting data includes an indicator of a determined security risk of the second candidate functional behavior.
However, in an analogous art, Liang discloses that prompting data includes an indicator of a determined security risk of a first candidate functional behavior (paragraph 128, lines 2-5: “the event security information may include prompt information indicating that a behavior executed by the security event is a dangerous behavior … the event security information may include prompt information indicating that a communication number related to the communication event may be a fraud number”), and wherein the prompting data includes an indicator of a determined security risk of a second candidate functional behavior (paragraph 128, lines 6-7: “the security event is a payment event, the event security information may include prompt information indicating that a bonus transfer account may be a fraud account”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi, Smith, Chakraborti and Fu by incorporating this feature taught in Liang for the purpose of increasing transparency and reducing the likelihood of selecting high-risk behavior.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Smith et al. (US 2002/0010625), and further in view of Charkraborti et al. (US 2009/0006373), Fu (US 2018/0082229), Liang et al. (US 2017/0366567), Li (US 2022/0383594) and Chiarelli (US 2021/0312058).
Regarding claim 12, Jacobi fails to disclose generating prompting data in dependence on the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in the second environment,
However, Smith discloses generating prompting data (corresponding to recommendations) in dependence on examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment (paragraph 62, lines 4-5: “generate recommendations in accordance with the invention: (a) the user's purchase history, including dates of purchase, (b) a history of items recently viewed by the user”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Smith for the purpose of guiding the user to activate provisioning based on prior usage patterns and ensuring relevant functionality is enabled when needed.
The combination of Jacobi and Smith fails to disclose that the prompting data specifies the first candidate functional behavior and the second candidate functional behavior.
However, Chakraborti discloses that prompting data specifies a first candidate functional behavior and second candidate functional behavior (paragraph 31, lines 1-7: “As one example, one recommender may use purchase-based item associations … a particular recommender may use item-viewing based associations”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi and Smith by incorporating this feature taught in Chakraborti for the purpose of enabling flexible selection of a preferred functional behavior and improving usability.
The combination of Jacobi, Smith and Chakraborti fails to disclose that the examining historical data of the previously recognized article of the user previously recognized in a second environment includes identifying a first candidate functional behavior of the article, and identifying a second candidate functional behavior of the article, wherein the method includes evaluating security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior of the article, and evaluating security risk associated to the second candidate functional behavior of the article.
However, Fu discloses that examining historical data of a previously recognized article of a user previously recognized in a second environment includes identifying a first candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 23, lines 1-2: “At 120, at least one of a first mean or a first variance of each of the at least one type of the plurality of users' historical behavior data of the first time period is calculated”), and identifying a second candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 26, lines 1-2: “At 140, at least one of a second mean or a second variance of each of the at least one type of the plurality of users' historical behavior data of the second time period is calculated), wherein the method includes evaluating security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior of the article, and evaluating security risk associated to the second candidate functional behavior of the article (paragraph 27, lines 1-2: “At 150, a risk model is generated based on at least one of the historical behavior data of the first time period or the historical behavior data of the second time period”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi, Smith and Chakraborti by incorporating this feature taught in Fu for the purpose of enabling the selection of a functional behavior that balances functionality with acceptable security risk.
The combination of Jacobi, Smith, Chakraborti and Fu fails to disclose that the prompting data includes an indicator of a determined security risk of the first candidate functional behavior, and wherein the prompting data includes an indicator of a determined security risk of the second candidate functional behavior.
However, Liang discloses that prompting data includes an indicator of a determined security risk of a first candidate functional behavior (paragraph 128, lines 2-5: “the event security information may include prompt information indicating that a behavior executed by the security event is a dangerous behavior … the event security information may include prompt information indicating that a communication number related to the communication event may be a fraud number”), and wherein the prompting data includes an indicator of a determined security risk of a second candidate functional behavior (paragraph 128, lines 6-7: “the security event is a payment event, the event security information may include prompt information indicating that a bonus transfer account may be a fraud account”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi, Smith, Chakraborti and Fu by incorporating this feature taught in Liang for the purpose of increasing transparency and reducing the likelihood of selecting high-risk behavior.
The combination of Jacobi, Smith, Chakaborti, Fu and Liang fails to disclose that the first environment is a virtual environment, and wherein the second environment is a physical environment.
However, in an analogous art, Li discloses that a first environment is a virtual environment, and a second environment is a physical environment (paragraph 106, lines 1-3: “At step 803, users interacting with the virtualized location module 209 may select the type of virtual environment the user would like to locally render and/or display by the AR device 201 or VR device 203 using the location selection engine 211. The virtual environments selected for mapping and rendering may be based on real locations in the physical world”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi, Smith, Chakraborti, Fu and Liang by incorporating this feature taught in Li for the purpose of supporting mapping or control between real physical environments and virtual environments.
The combination of Jacobi, Smith, Chakraborti, Fu, Liang and Li fails to disclose that the prompting data indicates differentiated security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior and the second candidate functional behavior, respectively.
However, in an analogous art, Chiarelli discloses that prompting data (corresponding to displaying via a graphical user interface) indicates differentiated security risk associated to a first candidate functional behavior and a second candidate functional behavior, respectively (paragraph 90, lines 1-3: “At step 525, vulnerability score determination system 101 may determine … an enterprise risk score for the enterprise organization, where the enterprise risk score is an aggregate of risk scores for vulnerabilities in a collection of vulnerabilities”; paragraph 91, lines 1-2: “At step 530, vulnerability score determination system 101 may display, via a graphical user interface, the enterprise risk score.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi, Smith, Chakraborti, Fu, Liang and Li by incorporating this feature taught in Chiarelli for the purpose of improving decision-making by enabling comparison of the respective security risks.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Li (US 2022/0383594).
Regarding claim 13, Jacobi fails to disclose that the first environment is a virtual environment, and wherein the second environment is a physical environment.
However, Li discloses that a first environment is a virtual environment, and a second environment is a physical environment (paragraph 106, lines 1-3: “At step 803, users interacting with the virtualized location module 209 may select the type of virtual environment the user would like to locally render and/or display by the AR device 201 or VR device 203 using the location selection engine 211. The virtual environments selected for mapping and rendering may be based on real locations in the physical world”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Li for the purpose of supporting mapping or control between real physical environments and virtual environments.
Regarding claim 14, Jacobi fails to disclose that the first environment is a physical environment, and wherein the second environment is a virtual environment.
However, Li discloses that a first environment is a physical environment, and a second environment is a virtual environment (paragraph 106, lines 1-3: “At step 803, users interacting with the virtualized location module 209 may select the type of virtual environment the user would like to locally render and/or display by the AR device 201 or VR device 203 using the location selection engine 211. The virtual environments selected for mapping and rendering may be based on real locations in the physical world”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Li for the purpose of supporting mapping or control between real physical environments and virtual environments.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of O’Herlihy et al. (US 2018/0157984).
Regarding claim 15, Jacobi fails to disclose that the provisioning the article to include the functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining historical data of the article of the user within the first environment, wherein the examining historical data of the article of the user within the first environment includes querying a predictive model that has been trained with machine learning training data of historical sessions of the user in the first environment.
However, in an analogous art, O’Herlihy discloses that provisioning an article to include functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining historical data of the article of a user within a first environment (paragraph 42, lines 1-2: “A user profile 310 comprises a description of prior user activity data of a user, which may be determined from prior request data 300 received for a particular user for past trips taken by the user.”), wherein the examining historical data of the article of the user within the first environment includes querying a predictive model that has been trained with machine learning training data of historical sessions of the user in the first environment (paragraph 52, lines 4-5: “The computer model is created using past trip requests the system 130 has received from some or all of the users who have submitted trip requests.”; paragraph 53, line 3: “The system 130 generates 530 a prediction about the current state of the user who requested the pickup”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in O’Herlihy for the purpose of predicting user-relevant behavior and dynamically control system actions based on prior usage patterns.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of O’Herlihy et al. (US 2018/0157984), and further in view of Mars et al. (US 10,296,848).
Regarding claim 16, Jacobi fails to disclose that the provisioning the article to include the functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining historical data of the article of the user within the first environment, wherein the examining historical data of the article of the user within the first environment includes querying a predictive model that has been trained with machine learning training data of historical sessions of the user in the first environment.
However, O’Herlihy discloses that provisioning an article to include functional behavior is performed in dependence on a result of examining historical data of the article of a user within a first environment (paragraph 42, lines 1-2: “A user profile 310 comprises a description of prior user activity data of a user, which may be determined from prior request data 300 received for a particular user for past trips taken by the user.”), wherein the examining historical data of the article of the user within the first environment includes querying a predictive model that has been trained with machine learning training data of historical sessions of the user in the first environment (paragraph 52, lines 4-5: “The computer model is created using past trip requests the system 130 has received from some or all of the users who have submitted trip requests.”; paragraph 53, line 3: “The system 130 generates 530 a prediction about the current state of the user who requested the pickup”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in O’Herlihy for the purpose of predicting user-relevant behavior and dynamically control system actions based on prior usage patterns.
The combination of Jacobi and O’Herlihy fails to disclose that the machine learning training data of historical sessions of the user in the first environment includes data of historical sessions of a crowdsourced collection of users other than the user.
However, in an analogous art, Mars discloses that a machine learning training data of historical sessions of the user in the first environment (col. 13, lines 63-66: “S260 may function to simulate how a machine learning model would have performed based on historical operational and/or use data of the machine learning model.”) includes data of historical sessions of a crowdsourced collection of users other than the user (col. 3, lines 19-23: “(paragraph 73, lines 1-2: “the plurality of external training data sources 180 may include a crowdsourcing data platform … in which labeled data is sourced from a number of data sources or users into the crowdsourcing data platform.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi and O’Herlihy by incorporating this feature taught in Mars for the purpose of improving prediction accuracy by leveraging a larger and more diverse dataset beyond a single user’s history.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Shimy et al. (US 2011/0069940).
Regarding claim 17, Jacobi fails to disclose that the examining historical data of the user includes examining data that specifies that the user has provisioned the recognized article of the second environment to include functional behavioral of the article of the user in the first environment.
However, in an analogous art, Shimy discloses that examining historical data of the user includes examining data that specifies that the user has provisioned (corresponding to applying when the first user is within the detected region) the recognized article of the second environment to include functional behavioral (corresponding to settings) of the article of the user in the first environment (paragraph 4, lines 4-5: “First settings associated with the first user may be applied when the first user is within the detection region.”; paragraph 8, lines 3-5: “The media content that was provided on the original media device may be continued on the new media device. The activities of the first user may be communicated back to the original media device.”; this corresponds to tracking between the first environment and the second environment; the system re-applies or continues settings or behavior across environments or devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Shimy for the purpose of maintaining continuity of user experience by reusing previously configured functionality across environments.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobi et al. (US 2001/0021914) in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2010/0318758).
Claim 19 incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Jacobi fails to disclose a system or a comprising a memory; at least one processor in communication with the memory; and program instructions executable by one or more processor via the memory.
However, in an analogous art, Agrawal discloses a memory; at least one processor in communication with the memory; and program instructions executable by one or more processor via the memory (paragraph 56, lines 1-8: “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a tangible computer-readable storage medium that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner … the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Shimy for the purpose of for the purpose of providing a routine architecture for implementing the limitations in claim 1.
Claim 20 incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Jacobi fails to disclose a computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage medium readable by one or more processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by one or more processors.
However, Shimy discloses a computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage medium readable by one or more processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by one or more processors (paragraph 56, lines 1-8: “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a tangible computer-readable storage medium that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner … the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Jacobi by incorporating this feature taught in Shimy for the purpose of providing a routine architecture for implementing the limitations in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to disclose the recited combination of elements, including examining data on bytes of provisioning data used for provisioning the previously recognized article of the user in sessions of the second environment, examining a recency with which the previously recognized article of the user was recognized, examining a frequency with which the previously recognized article of the user was recognized in sessions of the second environment, wherein the examining historical data of the article of the user within the first environment includes querying a predictive model that has been trained with machine learning training data of historical sessions in the first environment, wherein the method includes evaluating security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior of the article of the user in the first environment, the evaluating security risk associated to the first candidate functional behavior of the article including evaluating use of a counterpart physical article of the article in the physical environment, recording provisioning data of the provisioning, wherein the provisioning data of the provisioning includes an other users classifier, an environment classifier and a data action classifier specifying a provisioned functional behavior selected by the selecting, wherein the method includes further training the predictive model using the other users classifier, the environment classifier and a data action classifier specifying the provisioned functional behavior, detecting a virtual article in virtual reality session of a second user, and, in response to the detecting the virtual article presenting subsequent prompting data to the second user, wherein the subsequent prompting data is generated in dependence on a subsequent query of the predictive model as further trained in dependence on the further training using the other users classifier, the environment classifier and the data action classifier specifying the provisioned functional behavior, as in claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ransford et al. (US 2022/0083652) discloses rick asset management and risk notification in cyber security.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646