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 .
This is response to Amendments/REMARKS, filed on 07/21/2026:
Claims 1-21 were pending.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 4-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 20 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Vähä-Sipilä” et al. (US 10318759 B2) in view of “Scott-Nash” et al. (US 9740882 B2).
Vähä-Sipilä discloses claim 1/20/21:
A method, comprising: by a secure process of a device:
receiving, from a sensor in communication with a secure process, sensor data [Vähä-Sipilä discloses “Also, as used herein, “local data” pertains to any information that can be retrieved or acquired by a device regarding the user, the device, or other devices, the environment of the user, the device or of other devices, an activity pertaining to the user, the device, or the other devices, or a combination thereof. For the purpose of example, the local data includes, at least in part, data detected by one or more sensors associated with the user device” (col.4, lines 35-42)]; and
after receiving the sensor data:
in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the device is currently in a first state, sending the sensor data to a system process of the device [Vähä-Sipilä discloses “The requested data may include context data, user identity data, user profile data, or a combination thereof.” For example, “Thus, the context data may be acquired via the sensor 117 (e.g., sensors 117a-117n of UEs 101a-101n), which may include a location sensor” (col.7, lines 9-25 with FIG.1); wherein the 1st criteria sensor data for location determination]; and
in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the second set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the device is currently in a second state different from the first state, forgoing sending the sensor data to the system process of the device, wherein the second set of one or more criteria is different from the first set of one or more criteria [Vähä-Sipilä discloses “The requested data may include context data, user identity data, user profile data, or a combination thereof.” For example, “Further, the UE 101 may be connected to a sensor 117, which is used to collect various types of sensor data. The sensor may include … a sound sensor, a speed sensor, a brightness sensor, etc.” (col.7, lines 9-25 with FIG.1); wherein the sensor 2nd criteria is/are sensor data for; for e.g., sound, etc.].
in view of “Oda” et al. (US 10917472 B2).
Vähä-Sipilä fail; but, Oda, analogues art, discloses, sending, to the system process, metadata corresponding to the sensor data, wherein the metadata is different from the sensor data [Oda discloses, “acquire sensor-side metadata including a first label corresponding to a label showing a name given in order to identify event data” (Abstract). Sensor-side metadata (in FIGS.2A, 3, 5, 6A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Vähä-Sipilä by incorporating the sensor-side metadata teaching of Oda for converting sensing data into a specific data format that enables the data distribution apparatus to detect the event and to help an operator to create code for retrieving data to be used in order to detect the event from sensing data.
Claims 20 & 21 are A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and A device claims, and recite similar limitations as that of the method claim. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationale applied in rejecting claim 1 above.
Vähä-Sipilä in view of Oda disclose claim 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: after receiving the sensor data and in accordance with a determination that a third set of one or more criteria is satisfied, sending, to the system process, second metadata corresponding to the sensor data, wherein the second metadata is different from the sensor data and the metadata [Oda discloses, “acquire app-side metadata including a second label that is an event condition showing a condition of an event and corresponds to the label, to determine, in a case where sensing data satisfies a requirement of an application” (Abstract). Appr-side metadata (in FIGS.2B, 3, 5, 6A)]. The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 1 above.
Vähä-Sipilä in view of Oda disclose claim 6-7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the metadata using the sensor data; a wherein the metadata indicates whether an event occurred with respect to the sensor data [Oda discloses event data (in Abstract and FIGS.2A-2B)]. The motivation to combine is the same as that of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2, 3 & 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Vähä-Sipilä” et al. (US 10318759 B2) in view of “Scott-Nash” et al. (US 9740882 B2).
Vähä-Sipilä discloses The method of claim 1. Vähä-Sipilä does not; but, Scott-Nash, analogues art, discloses claim 2-3, further comprising: determining a current state of the device; further comprising: in response to determining the current state of the device, sending a request to change the device from a respective state to the first state [Scott-Nash discloses Change sensor mode 302-316? (FIG.3)/ Sensor mode of sensor set to private? 404 (FIG.4). And, “… Malware may gain visibility to such sensors. Where the sensor state is displayed to the user, such as the camera-ON LED, malware may spoof the state (e.g., turn off the LED)…” (col.7, line 40 to col.8, line 40)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Vähä-Sipilä by incorporating the state determining/changing teaching of Scott-Nash for protecting sensor privacy from security or privacy threat.
Vähä-Sipilä in view of Scott-Nash disclose claim 11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: after receiving the sensor data and in accordance with a determination that a fourth set of one or more criteria is satisfied, forgoing sending sensor information corresponding to the sensor data to the system process [Vähä-Sipilä discloses “The requested data may include context data, user identity data, user profile data, or a combination thereof.” For example, “Further, the UE 101 may be connected to a sensor 117, which is used to collect various types of sensor data. The sensor may include … a sound sensor, a speed sensor, a brightness sensor, etc.” (col.7, lines 9-25 with FIG.1); wherein the sensor 3rd, 4th, 5th criteria is/are speed, brightness, etc.].
Vähä-Sipilä in view of Scott-Nash disclose claim 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data is sent, from a first application executing on the device, to the system process to satisfy a request for sensor information received by the system process from the first application, the method further comprising: receiving, from a second sensor in communication with the secure process, second sensor data; and after receiving the second sensor data: in accordance with a determination that the first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, sending the second sensor data to the system process, wherein the second sensor data is sent to the system process to satisfy a request for sensor information received by the system process from a second application executing on the device, and wherein the second application is different from the first application; and in accordance with a determination that the second set of one or more criteria is satisfied, forgoing sending the second sensor data to the system process of the device [Vähä-Sipilä discloses “The requested data may include context data, user identity data, user profile data, or a combination thereof.” For example, “Thus, the context data may be acquired via the sensor 117 (e.g., sensors 117a-117n of UEs 101a-101n), which may include a location sensor” (col.7, lines 9-25 with FIG.1); wherein the 1st criteria sensor data for location determination; example, “Further, the UE 101 may be connected to a sensor 117, which is used to collect various types of sensor data. The sensor may include … a sound sensor, a speed sensor, a brightness sensor, etc.” (col.7, lines 9-25 with FIG.1); wherein the sensor 2nd criteria is/are sensor data for; for e.g., sound, etc.].
Vähä-Sipilä in view of Scott-Nash disclose claim 13-14. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from a third sensor in communication with the secure process, third sensor data; and after receiving the third sensor data and in accordance with a determination that a fifth set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the fifth set of one or more criteria includes a criterion corresponding to a type of sensor data corresponding to the third sensor data, and wherein the fifth set of one or more criteria does not include a criterion that is based on a state of the device, sending, to the system process, sensor information corresponding to the third sensor data; and further comprising: after receiving the sensor data and in accordance with a determination that a sixth set of one or more criteria is satisfied, sending, to the system process, fourth sensor data corresponding to the sensor data, wherein the fourth sensor data is different from the sensor data [Vähä-Sipilä discloses “The requested data may include context data, user identity data, user profile data, or a combination thereof.” For example, “Further, the UE 101 may be connected to a sensor 117, which is used to collect various types of sensor data. The sensor may include … a sound sensor, a speed sensor, a brightness sensor, etc.” (col.7, lines 9-25 with FIG.1); wherein the sensor 3rd, 4th, 5th criteria is/are speed, brightness, etc.].
Vähä-Sipilä in view of Scott-Nash disclose claim 15. The method of claim 1, further comprising: after sending the sensor data to the system process, receiving, from the sensor, fifth sensor data; and after receiving the fifth sensor data and in accordance with a determination that the second set of one or more criteria is satisfied, sending sensor information to the system process [Vähä-Sipilä discloses “The requested data may include context data, user identity data, user profile data, or a combination thereof.” For example, “Further, the UE 101 may be connected to a sensor 117, which is used to collect various types of sensor data. The sensor may include … a sound sensor, a speed sensor, a brightness sensor, etc.” (col.7, lines 9-25 with FIG.1); wherein the sensor 3rd, 4th, 5th criteria is/are speed, brightness, etc.].
Vähä-Sipilä in view of Scott-Nash disclose claim 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes health, video, and/or audio data [Vähä-Sipilä discloses “The sensor may include … a sound sensor, a speed sensor, a brightness sensor, etc.” (col.7, lines 9-25 with FIG.1)].
Vähä-Sipilä in view of Scott-Nash disclose claim 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the first state corresponds to the device displaying an indication that respective sensor data is being provided to an application, and wherein the second state corresponds to the device not displaying an indication that sensor data is being provided to an application [Scott-Nash discloses Change sensor mode 302-316? (FIG.3)/ Sensor mode of sensor set to private? 404 (FIG.4). And, “… Malware may gain visibility to such sensors. Where the sensor state is displayed to the user, such as the camera-ON LED, malware may spoof the state (e.g., turn off the LED)…” (col.7, line 40 to col.8, line 40)]. The motivation to combine is he same as that of claim 2-3 above.
Claim(s) 18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Vähä-Sipilä” et al. (US 10318759 B2) in view of “Duan” (US 12265098 B2).
Vähä-Sipilä disclose The method of claim 1. Vähä-Sipilä does not; but, Duan, analogues art, discloses claim 18-19, wherein the system process is part of an operating system of the device; and wherein the secure process executes using a microkernel separate from a kernel used by the system process [Duan discloses, “An operating system of the electronic device may use a layered architecture, an event-driven architecture, a microkernel architecture, a micro-service architecture, or a cloud architecture” (col.8, lines 41-47)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Vähä-Sipilä by incorporating the OS and microkernel of Duan for implementing layered architecture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Reconsideration made after reviewing amendment/remarks filed. (Examiner’s Notes that for advancing prosecution, applicant’s rep was contacted with amendment’s proposal. Office Action requested for review).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is argued that,
prior art (Vaha-Sipila) fails to disclose “secure process” , etc.
Examiner respectfully disagree and notes that the claimed “secure process” is taken as any process performed by a computer device or application. In fact, the description of the invention; for example, in par.0084, describes ordinary process, or process that are well known and known in the art (drivers, applications, filter; and process executed by CPU). To the minimum, Vaha-Sipila discloses UE Application (FIG.1).
(2) Vaha-Sipila fails to disclose selectively sending sensor data being in 1st vs. 2nd state. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Vaha-Sipila is even better in that: it discloses different sensors that acquire and process plurality sensor data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARE F TABOR whose telephone number is (571) 270-3155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.—Fri.: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.
/AMARE F TABOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights