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 .
Claims 1-8 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/24 and 3/7/25 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-6 recite an information processing device comprising a first information area and a second information area, which may be implemented by software. Applicant is advised to positively recite hardware component for the device claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites an information processing system comprising a first information processing device and a second information processing device. The devices may be implemented by software without positive recitation of hardware component. Therefore, Applicant is advised to positively recite hardware component for implementing the steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: determining access permission, exchange information between first and second information processing devices, steps for acquiring and applying acquired information to processing. Specifically, the claim recites information areas without reciting any steps for implementing the method.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapoor et al. U.S. 2023/0359911 (hereinafter Kapoor).
As per claim 1, Kapoor discloses an information processing device for processing user information about a user (Kapoor: [0003]: method for evaluating data request associated with intelligent virtual assistant), the information processing device comprising:
at least one of a first information area and a second information area for classifying the user information, wherein the first information area is a general access permission determination block having a list including a sensitive topic, sensitivity scores assigned to topics including the sensitive topic, and an appropriate data processing level allowed for the information processing device of the user information (Kapoor: [0032]: context of interaction including topic, identify of requesting entity… the DM program may include various manager components/information areas to evaluate the data sharing request), and
wherein the second information area is a user-specific access permission block when information is exchanged between the information processing device and another user different from the user or an information processing device of the other user (Kapoor: [0033]: defined trust levels for known requesting entities and defined groups of people and applications).
Kapoor does not explicitly recite designation of first and second information areas. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to designate the rule templates as information areas to assess information sharing request as well known in the art to store information by classification or attribute.
As per claim 2, Kapoor discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Kapoor further discloses third information area for classifying the user information that is registered information of a publicly accessible user and information processing device (Kapoor: [0032]-[0033]).
As per claim 3, Kapoor discloses the information processing device according to claim 2. Kapoor does not explicitly disclose wherein an information area is classified as any one of the first information area, the second information area, and the third information area on the basis of a level of trust between the user and the other user who exchanges information with the user (Kapoor: [0014]-[0015]: contextual information to determine trust factors associated with requesting entity; [0032]-[0033]: context of the interaction and data sharing request include identification of virtual assistant, affiliation of the requesting entity, interaction setting, type of user data requested, interaction topic, etc).
As per claim 4, Kapoor discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Kapoor further discloses wherein a procedure for acquiring other user information about the other user and applying the acquired other user information to processing and understanding by the information processing device on the basis of either one of the first information area and the second information area is identified (Kapoor: [0014]).
As per claim 5, Kapoor discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Kapoor does not explicitly disclose wherein other user information about the other user is acquired and the other user information is sent to the information processing device of the other user after the other user information is encrypted when processing by the information processing device of the user is not allowed on the basis of the second information area for processing of the acquired other user information and when transmission to the information processing device of the other user is allowed, and wherein other user information about the other user is acquired, the other user information is deleted when processing by the information processing device of the user is not allowed on the basis of the second information area for processing of the acquired other user information and when transmission to the information processing device of the other user is not allowed, and the other user information is not sent to the information processing device of the other user. However, data encryption and deletion are well known data protection method to prevent disclosure of privacy related information.
As per claim 6, Kapoor discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Kapoor further discloses wherein other user information about the other user is acquired and it is determined whether to perform processing of all of the other user information or whether to perform processing of a part of the other user information on the basis of a processing level when processing by the information processing device of the user is allowed on the basis of the second information area for processing of the acquired other user information (Kapoor: [0037]; [0047]-[0052]:determine types of access allowed).
As per claim 7, Kapoor discloses an information processing system comprising:
a first information processing device of a first user (Kapoor: Fig. 4: various user devices); and
a second information processing device of a second user (Kapoor: Fig. 4: various devices),
wherein the second information processing device includes at least one of a first information area and a second information area for classifying user information, and
classifies an information area as either one of the first information area and the second information area on the basis of a level of trust between the second user and the first user who exchanges information with the second user,
wherein the first information area is a general access permission determination block having a list including a sensitive topic, sensitivity scores assigned to topics including the sensitive topic, and an appropriate data processing level allowed for the information processing device of the user information (Kapoor: [0032]: context of interaction including topic, identify of requesting entity… the DM program may include various manager components/information areas to evaluate the data sharing request),
wherein the second information area is a user-specific access permission block when information is exchanged between the first user or the first information processing device and the second information processing device (Kapoor: [0033]: defined trust levels for known requesting entities and defined groups of people and applications), and
wherein information is exchanged between the first information processing device and the second information processing device when the exchange of the information between the first information processing device and the second information processing device has been allowed (Kapoor: [0037]: data processing rules; [0047]-[0052]: examples of information sharing based on defined rules).
Kapoor does not explicitly recite designation of first and second information areas. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to designate the rule templates as information areas to assess information sharing request as well known in the art to store information by classification or attribute.
As per claim 8, Kapoor discloses an information processing method of an information processing device for processing user information about a user, the information processing method comprising:
at least one of a first information area and a second information area for classifying the user information, wherein the first information area is a general access permission determination block having a list including a sensitive topic, sensitivity scores assigned to topics including the sensitive topic, and an appropriate data processing level allowed for the information processing device of the user information (Kapoor: [0032]: context of interaction including topic, identify of requesting entity… the DM program may include various manager components/information areas to evaluate the data sharing request),
wherein the second information area is a user-specific access permission block when information is exchanged between the information processing device and another user different from the user or an information processing device of the other user (Kapoor: [0033]: defined trust levels for known requesting entities and defined groups of people and applications), and
wherein a procedure for acquiring other user information about the other user and applying the acquired other user information to processing and understanding by the information processing device on the basis of either one of the first information area and the second information area is identified (Kapoor: [0037]: data processing rules; [0047]-[0052]: examples of information sharing based on defined rules).
Kapoor does not explicitly recite designation of first and second information areas. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to designate the rule templates as information areas to assess information sharing request as well known in the art to store information by classification or attribute.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. “Confidant: A Privacy Controller for Social Robots” (hereinafter Tang) in view of Agrawal et al. WO 2022/102891 (hereinafter Agrawal).
As per claim 1, Tang discloses an information processing device for processing user information about a user, the information processing device comprising:
at least one of a first information area and a second information area for classifying the user information, wherein the first information area is a general access permission determination block having a list including a sensitive topic, sensitivity scores assigned to topics including the sensitive topic (Tang: col. 3: controller which extracts conversational metadata and generates privacy rules; col. 6: determine speaker identity, relationship, level of detail, number of listeners; Fig. 3 and col. 8: generalized rules that map metadata tuples extracted from these conversation to the privacy annotations(…) control level (e.g. low, moderate, or high control). These control levels dictate whether a robot should disclose a specific piece of information and how much detail it should provide).
Tang also discloses to determine speaker relationships (Tang: col. 16) to differentiate between a plurality of users that may have different trust levels.
Tang does not explicitly disclose an appropriate data processing level allowed for the information processing device of the user information, and wherein the second information area is a user-specific access permission block when information is exchanged between the information processing device and another user different from the user or an information processing device of the other user. However, Agrawal discloses determining privacy of a file and applying privacy to a file with respect to an entity (Agrawal: [0001]; [0039]-[0041]: applying privacy to a file with respect to an entity, in particular a social robot). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to specify different levels of information sharing according to identified speaker/user because Agrawal and Tang are in the same of endeavor involving collection of data by social robots. The motivation to combine would be to implement adaptive and personalized features based on privacy concerns.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guerra et al. U.S. 12,299,180 discloses method for managing data from third-party devices.
Kim et al. U.S. 12,005,579 discloses robot reacting on basis of user behavior and control method.
McKenzie et al. U.S. 2024/0103677 discloses user interfaces for managing sharing of content in 3D environments.
Grichnik et al. U.S. 2023/0223026 discloses generating contextually relevant text transcript of voice recordings within a message thread.
Hajiyev et al. U.S. 2022/0383896 discloses method for collecting behavioral data to assist interpersonal interaction.
Lawrenson et al. U.S. 11,436,380 discloses sensor privacy setting control.
Rey et al. U.S. 2022/0036708 discloses meeting privacy protection system.
Wang U.S. 11,138,947 discloses privacy mode based on speaker identifier.
Groth et al. U.S. 2021/0192651 discloses method for analyzing privacy policies.
Gewickey et al. U.S. 2019/0366557 discloses social robot with environmental control feature.
Zweig et al. U.S. 2019/0273702 discloses method for adjusting a device behavior based on privacy classes.
Keane U.S. 2019/0253269 discloses secure distribution and sharing of meeting content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN HON (ERIC) CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9am- 7pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431