DETAILED ACTION
The Instant Application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 75-92 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of 17/701943, 17/077964, 15/430147, 14/024362, 12/521757, PCT/US2007/089237, 15/214416, 14/294957, 15/360767, 13/793336, PCT/US2007/019533, 15/360700, 12/521760, 15/357959, 15/047976, 13/618047, 12/521758, PCT/US2007/019544, 15/357847, 15/047976, 15/011843, 14/633449, 13/618238, 12/521763, 14/962165, 12/521746 the earliest of which appears to be filed 12/29/2006.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 75-92 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,943,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader versions of those claims. Examiner maps Claim 75 to Claim 1 of the patent below. In addition:
Claims 85 and 89 are similar subject matter to Claim 75
Claims 76-77, 88, 91 are similar subject matter to Claims 2-3, 14 and 17 of the patent
Claim 78 and 86 is similar subject matter to Claim 4 and 12 of the patent
Claim 79, 90 and 92 is similar subject matter to Claim 5, 16 and 18 of the patent
Claim 80 is similar subject matter to Claim 6 of the patent
Claim 81 is similar subject matter to Claim 7 of the patent
Claim 82 is similar subject matter to Claim 8 of the patent
Claim 83 is similar subject matter to Claim 9 of the patent
Claim 84 is similar subject matter to Claim 10 of the patent
Claim 87 is similar subject matter to Claim 13 of the patent
Instant Claim 75
Claim 1 of Patent ‘351
Notes
A system, comprising: one or more processors; at least one interface configured to enable access to one or more wireless networks at a user premises; and one or more memories locally storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a process including:
An IoT system, comprising: one or more processors; at least one interface configured to enable access to one or more wireless networks at a user premises; and one or more memories locally storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the IoT system to:
The instant claims are less limited because they are not limited to an IoT system. Otherwise, the claims are similar.
enabling a first user to remotely manage, via a software application running on a user device,
enable a main user to remotely control, via a software application,
The instant claims are less limited because they refer to a first user rather than a main user. A person of ordinary skill would understand that a software application must be run on a user device.
a revokable invitation for a second user to access stored content managed by the system,
a revokable invitation status for an additional user to access content stored and managed by the IoT system,
Similar scope except for calling “an additional user” “a second user.”
wherein the software application is configured to allow the first user to subsequently deny access to the stored content by the second user,
wherein the software application is configured to allow the main user to subsequently deny access to the content by the additional user;
Similar Scope
sending an invitation for the second user to access to the stored content,
send an invitation for the additional user to access to the content;
Similar Scope
and in response to the second user using the invitation to accept access to the stored content, providing secured access to the stored content by the second user.
and based on acceptance of the invitation by the additional user, provide secured access to the content by the additional user.
Similar Scope
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 89, 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 89, it is being rejected in view of the OG Notice on Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media posted on USPTO’s website on 1/28/2010. It is being reproduced partially below to maintain a clear record:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. [[]]
In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.”
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of dependency and because they do not obviate the above-recited deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 88 and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. In Claim 88, “wherein enabling the first user to remotely control recording of the content” has no prior basis in Claim 85. In Claim 92, “enabling the first user to selectively allow remote access the stored content” has no prior basis in Claim 89.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 75, 78-80, 84-87, 89-90, and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Phillips (US Pub. 2006/0129627) in view of Harrison (US Pub. 2001/0049786).
With respect to Claim 75, Phillips teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors; (Fig. 2, paras. 53-55; processor)
at least one interface configured to enable access to one or more wireless networks at a user premises; (para. 53; network interface card. Para. 59; client node can be mobile and connect via a wireless channel)
and one or more memories locally storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a process including: (para. 53; memory)
enabling a first user to remotely manage, via a software application running on a user device, (Fig. 3, paras. 56-74; client node may interact with remote servers which store files for the clients. The client node has software which allows it to store, retrieve or modify the data on the remote servers.)
a revokable invitation for a second user to access stored content managed by the system, (A revokable invitation will be taught later. para. 73; at least one node has client management software which can read, write, modify or delete any file on the remote server and may also designate new user accounts for the virtual storage devices. Fig. 5, paras. 89-91; client manager invites a new user)
sending an invitation for the second user to access to the stored content, (para. 90; client manager node invites new user to a particular virtual storage device via email.)
and in response to the second user using the invitation to accept access to the stored content, providing secured access to the stored content by the second user. (paras. 95-96; receiving user clicks on link in email. System confirms new user using one time password. paras. 92-94, 97-102; new user receives software, profile and decryption keys to allow for accessing the data volume. Paras. 107-109; user authenticates and uploads/downloads data.)
But Phillips does not explicitly teach a revokable invitation.
Harrison, however, does teach a revokable invitation; (para. 14; updating or revoking of credentials.)
wherein the software application is configured to allow the first user to subsequently deny access to the stored content by the second user, (para. 14; updating or revoking of credentials.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the system of Phillips with the revokable invitation in order to allow a user to change their mind about allowing access to data.
With respect to Claim 78, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 75, and Phillips also teaches wherein the one or more memories further includes locally stored instructions that further cause the system to manage encryption and decryption of the stored content. (paras. 97-99, 103-112; Client gets a key when initially registering and the key is used to perform secure transmission by encrypting the data for transit.)
With respect to Claim 79, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 75, and Phillips also teaches wherein the one or more memories further includes locally stored instructions that further cause the first user to identify accessible content and non-accessible content for the second user. (para. 10; privileges and access rights are specified for files and directories for users or groups of users. paras. 73, 77, 87, 113, 129, 164-169; system determines access rights of a user.)
With respect to Claim 80, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 75, and Phillips also teaches wherein the system locally stores content in a memory storage element, a hard drive, or disk memory storage. (paras. 86, 123-129; system may have local files. Para. 53; hard disk.)
With respect to Claim 84, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 75, and Phillips also teaches wherein the system enables the first user to control access to (a) locally stored content and/or (b) content stored remotely from the user premises. (paras. 86, 123-129; system may have local files. Paras. 55-60; system may have remote files in remote file servers that are geographically remote. Paras. 10, 73-78, 113, 136-137; client manager node enforces access privileges and file sharing modes which control whether client nodes can read, write, modify or delete data.)
With respect to Claim 85, it is substantially similar to Claim 75, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 86, modified Phillips teaches the method of claim 85, and Phillips also teaches further comprising encrypting the stored content and subsequently decrypting the content based upon positive authentication of authentication credentials of the first user and/or one or more second users. (paras. 97-99, 103-112; Client gets a key when initially registering and the key is used to perform secure transmission by encrypting the data for transit.)
With respect to Claim 87, modified Phillips teaches the method of claim 85, and Harrison also teaches further comprising enabling a first user to modify an amount of the content accessible to one or more second users. (para. 14; updating or revoking of credentials.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 89, it is substantially similar to Claim 75, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Phillips also teaches a computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (para. 53; fixed or removable magnetic or optical disks.)
With respect to Claim 90, modified Phillips teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 89, and Phillips also teaches further comprising locally storing instructions that when executed by the computing system cause the computing system to enable the first user to identify accessible content and non- accessible content for the second user. (para. 10; privileges and access rights are specified for files and directories for users or groups of users. paras. 73, 77, 87, 113, 129, 164-169; system determines access rights of a user.)
With respect to Claim 92, modified Phillips teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 89, and Phillips also teaches wherein enabling the first user to selectively allow remote access the stored content includes enabling the first user to identify accessible content and non-accessible content for the second user. (para. 10; privileges and access rights are specified for files and directories for users or groups of users. paras. 73, 77, 87, 113, 129, 164-169; system determines access rights of a user.)
Claims 76-77, 81-83, 88 and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Phillips (US Pub. 2006/0129627) in view of Harrison (US Pub. 2001/0049786), and further in view of Rohlfing (US Pub. 2006/0171453).
With respect to Claim 76, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 75, but does not explicitly teach trigger settings.
Rohlfing, however, does teach further including one or more components located at the user premises, (para. 36; video surveillance system for a home including cameras)
the process further comprising storing one or more user inputted trigger settings provided by the first user, wherein the system is configured to use the one or more user inputted trigger settings to control operation of the one or more components. (para. 68, 77, 81, 83, 152; setting system parameters for the camera including record mode and image quality. Para. 148-149; motion detection parameters such as recording for 0, 5, or 10 seconds after motion stops. Para. 149; system may be put into motion capture, or continuous record, or scheduled recording.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the system of modified Phillips with the trigger settings in order to automatically control the operation of a device.
With respect to Claim 77, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 76, and Rohlfing also teaches wherein: the at least one interface is configured to interact with a camera, wherein the stored content is provided by the camera; (paras. 86-95; camera provides video to the system which stores the data to storage.)
and the one or more user inputted trigger settings are configured to control the operation of the camera. (para. 68, 77, 81, 83, 152; setting system parameters for the camera including record mode and image quality. Para. 148-149; motion detection parameters such as recording for 0, 5, or 10 seconds after motion stops. Para. 149; system may be put into motion capture, or continuous record, or scheduled recording.)
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 81, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 75, but does not explicitly teach trigger actions.
Rohlfing, however, does teach wherein the one or more memories further includes locally stored instructions that further cause storage of trigger actions, sensor data, and/or event data, wherein one or more cameras capture the stored content. (para. 68, 77, 81, 83, 152; setting system parameters for the camera including record mode and image quality. Para. 148-149; motion detection parameters such as recording for 0, 5, or 10 seconds after motion stops. Para. 149; system may be put into motion capture, or continuous record, or scheduled recording. (paras. 86-95; camera provides video to the system which stores the data to storage.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the system of modified Phillips with the trigger actions in order to automatically control the operation of a device.
With respect to Claim 82, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 75, but does not explicitly teach video content.
Rohlfing, however, does teach wherein the stored content includes video and/or media content. (para. 10, 49; storage of video data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the system of modified Phillips with video data in order to keep a record of video.
With respect to Claim 83, modified Phillips teaches the system of claim 75, but does not explicitly teach streaming.
Rohlfing, however, does teach wherein the system enables streaming of at least portion of the stored content to a display device. (paras. 71-73; video streaming to a video display system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the system of modified Phillips with streaming in order to view video on a display.
With respect to Claim 88, modified Phillips teaches the method of claim 85, and Phillips also teaches wherein the one or more trigger settings are provided by the first user. (Trigger settings will be taught later. para. 73; client manager device has full privileges.)
But modified Phillips does not explicitly teach trigger settings.
Rohlfing, however, does teach wherein enabling the first user to remotely control recording of the content includes storing one or more trigger settings configured for controlling operation (para. 68, 77, 81, 83, 152; setting system parameters for the camera including record mode and image quality. Para. 148-149; motion detection parameters such as recording for 0, 5, or 10 seconds after motion stops. Para. 149; system may be put into motion capture, or continuous record, or scheduled recording.)
of a camera located at the user premises, (para. 36; video surveillance system for a home including cameras)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of modified Phillips with the trigger settings in order to automatically control the operation of a device.
With respect to Claim 91, modified Phillips teaches the medium of claim 89, but does not explicitly teach trigger settings.
Rohlfing, however, does teach further comprising causing storing of instructions that cause the computing system to enable the first user to determine one or more trigger settings for controlling operation (para. 68, 77, 81, 83, 152; setting system parameters for the camera including record mode and image quality. Para. 148-149; motion detection parameters such as recording for 0, 5, or 10 seconds after motion stops. Para. 149; system may be put into motion capture, or continuous record, or scheduled recording.)
of a camera located at the user premises. (para. 36; video surveillance system for a home including cameras)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the medium of modified Phillips with the trigger settings in order to automatically control the operation of a device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449