DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to communications filed 04 September 2024.
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
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 Objections
Claims 2, 12 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities: "the plurality of other devices" are recited with insufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schultz et al. (US-8347360-B2) hereinafter Schultz.
Regarding claim 11, Schultz discloses:
A system ([1:64-3:13] systems) comprising:
a processor ([3:62-4:2] processing unit) configured to:
identify, over a network associated with a location ([6:28-48] communicating location proximity … of computer user to computer device via network 180 (i.e. network 180 associated a user in proximity)), activity data related to an event ([6:28-48] provide identification to computer device automatically or manually … detect … mobile communication device when computer user is within a certain distance from computer device … determined by a Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or cell tower triangulation, see [6:64-7:18] validate the identity claim for computer user … preferences associated with the shared device … access rights … parental filters, etc. (i.e. activity data related to an event to access data)), the event corresponding to rendering of digital content via a device at the location at a time ([6:64-7:18] privileges (e.g., access rights to content provided by SDIM 170 or another content provider, parental filters, etc., see [12:1-16] TV users … STB may activate family’s viewing preferences (e.g., favorite channels, parental filters, etc.; i.e. corresponding to rendering of digital content via a shared device at the location proximate at a real-time; device being a shared device such as the TV), see also [FIG. 9] e.g. family around STB at a given time);
determine, over the network ([FIG. 1] e.g. network 180), a set of other devices at the location ([FIG. 1] e.g. TV user, computer user, hub user, see [12:36-64] teenager (e.g., TV user) may be associated with user device … cell phone carried by teenager … detected by STB (i.e. determining another device entering proximity/certain distance));
determine, based on the activity data and information related to the set of other devices ([FIG. 1] e.g. TV user, computer user, hub user, see [12:36-64] teenager (e.g., TV user) may be associated with user device … cell phone carried by teenager … detected by STB (i.e. determining another device entering proximity/certain distance)), an identity of a set of users ([12:36-64] identify teenager based on the detected user device … alternatively, teenager may manually enter identification information (i.e. automatically detected or manual identification based on a teenager being proximate to the device, see [FIG. 10]), the set of users being associated with the rendering of the digital content via the device ([6:64-7:18] privileges (e.g., access rights to content provided by SDIM 170 or another content provider, parental filters, etc., see [12:1-16] TV users … STB may activate family’s viewing preferences (e.g., favorite channels, parental filters, etc.; i.e. corresponding to rendering of digital content via a shared device at the location proximate at a real-time), see also [FIG. 9] e.g. family around STB at a given time [FIG. 10] with teenager);
control, over the network ([FIG. 1] e.g. network 180), the rendering of the digital content based on executable instructions that control the device ([6:64-7:18] privileges (e.g., access rights to content provided by SDIM 170 or another content provider, parental filters, etc., see [12:1-16] TV users … STB may activate family’s viewing preferences (e.g., favorite channels, parental filters, etc.; i.e. corresponding to rendering of digital content via a shared device at the location proximate at a real-time; access right/filters for channels/etc.), see also [FIG. 9] e.g. family around STB at a given time [FIG. 10] with teenager), the executable instructions being based on at least one of the identified set of users ([6:64-7:18] e.g. family’s viewing preferences (i.e. identified TV viewers as part of family … e.g., favorite channels, parental filters, etc.)).
Regarding claim 12, Schultz discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify the plurality of other devices at the location ([FIG. 1] e.g. TV user, computer user, hub user, see [12:36-64] teenager (e.g., TV user) may be associated with user device … cell phone carried by teenager … detected by STB (i.e. determining another device entering proximity/certain distance), see [FIG. 9-10] e.g. family members, and then teenager);
analyze proximity data for each of the plurality of devices ([6:28-48] detect when computer user is within a certain distance (i.e. proximity data) from computer device … communicating location proximity … of computer user to computer device via network 180 (i.e. network 180 associated a user in proximity), see [10:41-64] user devices when family members are within a certain distance from hub telephone (i.e. multiple members/devices)); and
identify the set of other devices at the location based on the analysis of the proximity data ([10:41-64] first family member … second family member … husband and wife … locations of user devices 160 may be detected by hub telephone … within a certain distance … identify family members based on detected user devices … automatically provide detected locations), wherein the set of other devices have proximity data indicating each of the other devices are within a predetermined distance to the device ([10:41-64] e.g. locations of user devices … within a certain distance (i.e. predetermined distance) … identify family members (e.g., first/second family member such as husband and wife as above)).
Regarding claim 13, Schultz discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
analyze the activity data related to the event ([6:28-48] provide identification to computer device automatically or manually … detect … mobile communication device when computer user is within a certain distance from computer device … determined by a Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or cell tower triangulation, see [6:64-7:18] validate (i.e. analyzing the data to validate it) the identity claim for computer user … preferences associated with the shared device … access rights … parental filters, etc. (i.e. activity data related to an event to access data)); and
determine, based on the analysis ([6:64-7:18] validate (i.e. analyzing the data to validate it) the identity claim for computer user … preferences associated with the shared device … access rights … parental filters, etc. (i.e. activity data related to an event to access data)), attributes of the event ([12:1-16] family identification may include information indicating, for example, that family is using television (i.e. attribute)), the attributes corresponding to at least one of real-world and digital activities at the location ([12:1-16] family is using television (i.e. watching TV is a digital activity, and using the television is a real-world activity), see [FIG. 9-10]).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 16-18, they do not further define nor teach over the limitations of claims 11-13, therefore, claims 1-4 and 16-18 are rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above as in claims 11-13.
Regarding claim 8, Schultz discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions correspond to at least one of parental controls ([6:64-7:18] privileges (e.g., access rights to content provided by SDIM 170 or another content provider, parental filters, etc., see [12:1-16] TV users … STB may activate family’s viewing preferences (e.g., favorite channels, parental filters, etc.; i.e. corresponding to rendering of digital content via a shared device at the location proximate at a real-time; device being a shared device such as the TV), see also [FIG. 9] e.g. family around STB at a given time), network controls and energy controls.
Regarding claim 10, Schultz discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the activity data for the event comprises temporal and spatial data within the location for the digital rendering by the device ([6:15-63] identification information … include location information … location proximity (i.e. spatial) … external information may include timing information … time of day, etc. when computer user provides identification information … to determine a public user identifier).
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) 5-7, 14-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US-8347360-B2) hereinafter Schultz in view of Dureau (US-10110608-B2).
Regarding claim 14, Schultz discloses:
The system of claim 13, set forth above, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Schultz does not explicitly disclose:
search a database of stored behavior patterns based on a query defined by the determined attributes; and
identify, based on the search, at least one behavior pattern, the at least one behavior pattern comprising data indicating activities similar to the event at a similar time.
However, Dureau discloses:
search a database of stored behavior patterns based on a query defined by the determined attributes ([6:46-56] media device database which stores data related to one or more user accounts used for authorizing transaction (i.e. querying/searching database for data used for authorizing transaction) … including … identified trends (i.e. behavior patterns) and/or likes/dislikes associated with the user account); and
identify, based on the search ([12:49-56] compares the received response to the pre-defined responses stored at the database (i.e. to obtain from database requires searching the database for the proper information)), at least one behavior pattern ([6:45-56] identified trends, see [12:49-56] e.g. response to the challenge for verification), the at least one behavior pattern comprising data indicating activities similar to the event at a similar time ([14:20-31] verifies the response by comparing the received response to the pre-defined responses associated with the second user account stored at the database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shultz in view of Dureau to have searched a database of stored behavior patterns based on a query defined by the determined attributes to identify at least one behavior pattern comprising data indicating activities similar to the event at a similar time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have bene motivated to do so to authorize transaction of media content on a shared display using a private device (Dureau, [3:1-13]).
Regarding claim 15, Schultz-Dureau disclose:
The system of claim 14, set forth above,
Schultz does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the determination of the identity of the set of users is further based on the at least one behavior pattern.
However, Dureau discloses:
wherein the determination of the identity of the set of users is further based on the at least one behavior pattern ([17:55-18:3] authorizing the transaction from the media device prompts user 1 to speak a passphrase at the user device … matching operation on the passphrase and a pre-stored spoken passphrase stored at the media device … identifies degree of similarity between vocal characteristics and/or content of the spoken passphrase and that of a previously-stored spoken passphrase, see [15:49-62] after user 2 account is authenticated, the user account active on media device is also switched from user 1 to user 2 (i.e. identifying the user 2 based on the behavior pattern, e.g. verification)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shultz in view of Dureau to have determined the identity of the set of users further based on at least one behavior pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would have bene motivated to do so to authorize transaction of media content on a shared display using a private device (Dureau, [3:1-13]).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 19-20, they do not further define nor teach over the limitations of claims 14-15, therefore, claims 5-6 and 19-20 are rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above as in claims 14-15.
Regarding claim 7, Schultz-Dureau disclose:
The method of claim 5, set forth above, further comprising:
Schultz discloses:
identifying a set of devices associated with the location ([FIG. 1] e.g. TV user, computer user, hub user, see [12:36-64] teenager (e.g., TV user) may be associated with user device … cell phone carried by teenager … detected by STB (i.e. determining another device entering proximity/certain distance));
collecting data from each of the set of devices ([10:41-64] one or more of family members may manually enter identification information);
analyzing, via an application ([13:34-60] SDIM 170 may use identification information … to validate the identity claim for computer user), the collected data ([13:34-60] validate the identity claim for computer user, e.g., see [10:41-64] enter identification information);
Schultz does not explicitly disclose:
determining, via the application, a set of patterns of activity for the user; and
storing, in the database, the set of patterns of activity.
However, Dureau discloses:
determining, via the application ([6:9-12] application module(s)), a set of patterns of activity for the user ([6:46-56] identified trends (i.e. patterns determined as identified) and/or likes/dislikes associated with the user account); and
storing, in the database ([6:45-56] database), the set of patterns of activity ([6:46-56] media device database which stores data related to one or more user accounts used for authorizing transaction (i.e. querying/searching database for data used for authorizing transaction) … including … identified trends (i.e. behavior patterns) and/or likes/dislikes associated with the user account).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schultz in view of Dureau to have determined via the application a set of patterns of activity for the user and stored it in the database. One of ordinary skill in the art would have bene motivated to do so to authorize transaction of media content on a shared display using a private device (Dureau, [3:1-13]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US-8347360-B2) hereinafter Schultz in view of Segal (US-10225721-B2).
Regarding claim 9, Schultz discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the set of other devices are user devices of the identified users ([FIG. 1] e.g. TV user, computer user, hub user, see [12:36-64] teenager (e.g., TV user) may be associated with user device … cell phone carried by teenager … detected by STB (i.e. determining another device entering proximity/certain distance) … identify teenager based on the detected user device … alternatively, teenager may manually enter identification information (i.e. automatically detected or manual identification based on a teenager being proximate to the device, see [FIG. 10]),
Schultz does not explicitly disclose:
wherein at least one device is a smart ring.
However, Segal discloses:
wherein at least one device is a smart ring ([21:1-5] smart ring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schultz in view of Segal to have utilized a smart ring. One of ordinary skill in the art would have bene motivated to do so to use wearable technology for special daily purposes, information technologies, media development, etc. (Segal, [1:24-38]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rao et al. (US-11729274-B2) CUSTOMIZED USER SESSION AT SHARED DEVICE;
Connelly et al. (US-20210321216-A1) PROXIMITY DETECTION AND TARGETED COMMUNICATIONS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-8173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM ET.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/Alex Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453