DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the filed on 6/6/2024.
Claims 1-5 have been cancelled.
Claims 6-25 currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (provisional application 63/498,341, filed 4/26/2023, provisional application 63/530,986, filed 8/06/2023) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), or under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) is acknowledged.
Pro Se Applicant Notice
An examination of this application reveals that applicant is unfamiliar with patent prosecution procedure. While an applicant may prosecute the application (except that a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner, 37 CFR 1.31), lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting an attorney or agent.
A listing of registered patent attorneys and agents is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by writing to the Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0003]) that smartphones and wearables are currently limited to traditional uses for determining any of biometrics or health related measurements taken in private and lacking authentication. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through providing operator readiness assessment that are privately authenticated using the steps of “executing content algorithms, providing authenticator algorithms augmenting or communicating with content algorithms, determine sources of digital content, determine the most likely causal agents in association with sources of the digital content,” etc. Applicant’s system/method is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 6-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 6, 14 and 20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “providing operator readiness assessment that are privately authenticated,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0017]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 6-25 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method for performing the steps of “executing content algorithms, providing authenticator algorithms augmenting or communicating with content algorithms, determine sources of digital content, determine the most likely causal agents in association with sources of the digital content,” etc., that is “providing operator readiness assessment that are privately authenticated,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 6-25 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. smartphones, smartwatches, vehicles, operator detection components, camera (Applicant’s Specification [0025]-[0029]), etc.) to perform steps of “executing content algorithms, providing authenticator algorithms augmenting or communicating with content algorithms, determine sources of digital content, determine the most likely causal agents in association with sources of the digital content,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 6-25 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. smartphones, smartwatches, vehicles, operator detection components, camera, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. smartphones, smartwatches, vehicles, operator detection components, camera, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0025]-[0029], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “smartphones, smartwatches, vehicles, operator detection components, camera,” etc. to perform the functions of “executing content algorithms, providing authenticator algorithms augmenting or communicating with content algorithms, determine sources of digital content, determine the most likely causal agents in association with sources of the digital content,” etc. The recited “smartphones, smartwatches, vehicles, operator detection components, camera,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 6-25 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 7-13, 15-19 and 21-25 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 7-13, 15-19 and 21-25 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 7-13, 15-19 and 21-25 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 6, 14 and 20.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 6-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Tran et al. 690 (US 2020/0117690).
CLAIM 14
As per claim 14, Tran et al. 690 disclose:
a method (Tran et al. 690, [0016] method) for determining one or more content sources and one or more most likely causal agents relating to digital content for use in labeling the digital content, comprising the steps of:
using one or more computational means for executing one or more content algorithms for (1) composing or otherwise determining the digital content (Tran et al. 690, Figure 9 906 Receive curated content from various information sources based on preferences, [0021] algorithm), and
providing one or more authenticator algorithms augmenting or otherwise communicating with the one or more content algorithms, where the one or more authenticator algorithms are used at least in part to (2) determine the one or more sources of the digital content substantially at the time the digital content is received, composed or determined by the one or more content algorithms, (3) determine the one or more most likely causal agents in association with the one or more sources of the digital content, and (4) determine at least one label for the digital content (1) comprising a combination of representations of (2) and (3) (Tran et al. 690, [0021] algorithm, [0072] Blockchain Authentication).
CLAIM 15
As per claim 14, Tran et al. 690 disclose the method of claim 14 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein: each of the one or more determined content sources (2) provide either a part of or all of the digital content and are any one of or any combination of (2a) one or more input apparatus or otherwise interfaces for use by a person to input any of the digital content or application commands to the one or more computational means, (2b) one or more pre-existing documents or otherwise digital content locally or remotely accessible to the one or more computational means, and (2c) one or more content generative algorithms (Tran et al. 690, Figure 9), and
the one or more causal agents (3) of the digital content comprises any one of or any combination of (3a) a person, or (3b) a specific algorithm (Tran et al. 690, Figure 9).
CLAIM 16
As per claim 3, Tran et al. 690 disclose the method of claim 14 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein determining the one or more most likely causal agents (3) further comprises any one of or any combination of the sub-steps of:
(3i) monitoring a person currently in-use of the one or more computational means substantially while the person is providing inputs to the one or more computational means, where monitoring determines one or more person characteristics comprising any one of or any combination of the presence of the person, the identity of the person, the liveness of the person, and otherwise any behaviors and movements of the person, and where the extent of the person (3a) or the specific algorithm (3b) being determined as a likely causal agent is based at least in part upon the extent of correlation between any of the one or more monitored person characteristics and any of the congruent or concurrently composed or otherwise determined content (Tran et al. 690, Figure 9, Figure 10);
(3ii) assessing any one of or any combination of the digital content and the person-inputs to determine one or more input nature metrics comprising any one of or any combination of a measure of complexity, a measure of duration or otherwise time statistics, a measure of content size, a measure of in-part content, a measure of content to associated commands, or a measure of content editing, and where the extent of the person (3a) or the specific algorithm (3b) being determined as a likely causal agent is based at least in part upon the one or more input nature metrics (Tran et al. 690, Figure 9, Figure 10), and
(3iii) presenting the person with a system challenge and subsequently determining if a sufficient person response was received in conjunction with any one of or any combination of the monitoring of the person (3i) or the inputs of the person (3ii), and where the extent of the person (3a) or the specific algorithm (3b) being determined as a likely causal agent is based at least in part upon any one of or any combination of the system challenge and the sufficiency of the person response (Tran et al. 690, Figure 9, Figure 10).
CLAIM 17
As per claim 4, Tran et al. 690 disclose the method of claim 16 and further disclose the limitations of:
for protecting the privacy of a person determined to be a causal agent (3a) further comprising the step of:
using one or more additional computational means for executing at least the one or more authenticator algorithms implementing (3i) and (4), where the additional computational means are in communication with the one or more computational means, and (5) encrypting the at least one label determined in (4) such that the at least one encrypted label can only be decrypted by securely exchanging encryption information with an intermediary algorithm executing on or in communication with the one or more additional computational means (Tran et al. 690, [0021] algorithm, [0072] Blockchain Authentication).
CLAIM 18
As per claim 5, Tran et al. 690 disclose the method of claim 17 and further disclose the limitations of:
for restricting access by a content consumer person to the labeled digital content, further comprising the steps of:
(6) using one or more computational means for executing a content access program for use by the content consumer person to access the labeled digital content (Tran et al. 690, [0106] …access is restricted to a selected group of users), and
(6i) monitoring the content consumer person currently interacting with the content access program, where monitoring determines one or more person characteristics of the content consumer person, and where the content access program restricts access to the digital content by the content consumer person based at least in part by any one of or any combination of the person characteristics determined of the content consumer person and any of information comprising the at least one label (Tran et al. 690, [0106] …access is restricted to a selected group of users).
CLAIM 19
As per claim 6, Tran et al. 690 disclose the method of claim 14 and further disclose the limitations of:
for restricting or otherwise specifying one or more limitations for any one of or any combination of (1), (2), (3), or (4) further comprising the step of:
(7) providing one or more certificates for use by any one of or any combination of the content algorithms or the authenticator algorithms substantially before or otherwise at the time the digital content is being composed or otherwise determined (1), where the one or more certificates comprise information specifying any one of or any combination of (a) operating limits, (b) application limits, (c) types of authentication limits, and (d) extents of authentication limits (Tran et al. 690, [0021] algorithm, [0072] Blockchain Authentication).
CLAIMS 6-13
As per claims 6-13, claims 6-13 are directed to a system. Claims 6-13 recite the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 14-19. Claims 6-13 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 14-16.
CLAIMS 20-25
As per claims 20-25, claims 20-25 are directed to a system. Claims 20-25 recite the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 14-16. Claims 20-25 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 14-16.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO-892 and include:
Tran et al. 447 (US 2018/0117447) disclose an Internet of Thing (IoT) device includes a camera coupled to a processor; and a wireless transceiver coupled to the processor. Blockchain smart contracts can be used with the device to facilitate secure operation.
Tran et al. 367 (US 2020/0101367) disclose an Internet of Thing (IoT) device includes a camera coupled to a processor; and a wireless transceiver coupled to the processor. Blockchain smart contracts can be used with the device to facilitate secure operation.
Kuperberg 2020 (Reference U) disclose a systematic, criteria-driven survey of the new solutions and technologies for identity management and comparison with the capabilities of established solutions including an extensive set of requirements covering ecosystem aspects, end-user functionality, mobility and overhead aspects, compliance/liability, EU regulations, standardization, and integration.
Ahvanooey et al. 2022 (Reference V) disclose a comprehensive literature review and an empirical study to gain an in-depth understanding of the different authentication schemes as well as their vulnerabilities and deficits against various types of cyberattacks when applied in IoT-based systems. Based on the identified limitations, they recommend several mitigation strategies and discuss the practical implications of our findings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683