DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 10/22/2024. Claim(s) 1-24 is/are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority/Benefit
Applicant’s priority claim is hereby acknowledged of 371 of PCT/US2023/019832 04/25/2023, PCT/US2023/019832 has PRO 63/363,592 04/26/2022, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 10/22/2024 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 16, and 24 overcome the prior art and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests the following corrections:Claim 9:
Replacement of "nontransitory" with " non-transitory".
Claim 9:
Deletion of "in particular as claimed in any of the preceding claims" to avoid any possible confusion about multiple dependency.
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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10 12, 14-15, 17-18, 20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bali (US 2016/0364559 A1), in view of Gibbon (US 2020/0272821 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Bali teaches:
“A method (Bali, ¶ 63 teaches processor, memory and medium for executing method steps), comprising: receiving, by an isolated module of a companion device connected to a wearable device, a request from a manager module of the companion device (Bali, Fig. 3, ¶ 33-34 untrusted application 332 sends a request to the sensor hub IPC 322 sends a command to sensor hub 312 and fingerprint sensor 314 to capture biometric data. Bali, ¶ 60 teaches that the computing device may be an eyeglass computer) to determine a user context of a user wearing the wearable device (Examiner’s note, this is an intended use statement without patentable weight), the isolated module not sharing sensor data with the manager module (Bali, Fig. 3, ¶ 33-34 and 70 teaches that the untrusted execution environment is separate from the rest of the system); receiving, from the wearable device, encrypted sensor data acquired with a sensor of the wearable device, the encrypted sensor data being sensor data acquired from a sensor and encrypted (Bali, Fig. 3, ¶ 33-34 teaches receiving encrypted biometric data from the secure biometric environment to the trusted execution environment)”.
Bali does not, but in related art, Gibbon teaches:
“determining the user context based on the sensor data (Gibbon, Figs. 2-3, ¶ 14, and 26 teaches endpoint smart glasses applying context filters to visual feed of global facing cameras to determine user context)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bali and Gibbon, to modify the encrypted eyeglass computer sensor system of Bali to include the method to determine user context from global facing smart glasses as taught in Gibbon. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, Bali and Gibbon teaches:
“The method as in claim 1 (Bali and Gibbon teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising: establishing a secure connection with the wearable device (Bali, Fig. 3, ¶ 33-34 teaches receiving encrypted biometric data from the secure biometric environment to the trusted execution environment which a key exchange has been established)”.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, Bali and Gibbon teaches:
“The method as in claim 1 (Bali and Gibbon teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the sensor is a world-facing camera and the encrypted data includes a set of encrypted images, the images having been acquired with the world-facing camera (Bali, Fig. 3, ¶ 33-34 teaches receiving encrypted biometric data from the secure biometric environment to the trusted execution environment. Gibbon, Figs. 2-3, ¶ 14, and 26 teaches endpoint smart glasses applying context filters to visual feed of global facing cameras to determine user context)”.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 22, Bali and Gibbon teaches:
“The method as in claim 1 (Bali and Gibbon teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the user context includes an environment in which the user is driving (Gibbon, ¶ 26 teaches that the user context is the user in their car driving through a parking lot)”.
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 23, Bali and Gibbon teaches:
“The method as in claim 1 (Bali and Gibbon teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein determining the user context includes: inputting the sensor data into a machine learning engine, the machine learning engine being configured to determine the user context based on sensor data (Gibbon, Gibbon, ¶ 27 teaches using a machine learning model to establish the context filter used to determine the user context of the viewed feed)”.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 11, 13, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bali in view of Gibbon in view of Booth (US 2020/0134230 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, Bali and Gibbon teaches:
“The method as in claim 2 (Bali and Gibbon teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Bali and Gibbon does not, but in related art, Booth teaches:
“wherein the secure connection includes a transport layer security (TLS) protocol (Booth, Figs. 1, 4, ¶ 44 teaches a separated visual feed capturing device connected with a host gateway communicating through a TLS connection)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bali, Booth, and Gibbon, to modify the encrypted eyeglass computer sensor system of Bali and Gibbon to include the method to communicate with TLS as taught in Booth. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 21, Bali and Gibbon teaches:
“The method as in claim 1 (Bali and Gibbon teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Bali and Gibbon does not, but in related art, Booth teaches:
“sending data representing the user context to the manager module (Booth, Fig. 5, ¶ 56-58 teaches converting the sensor data into context metadata to be sent back to the connection device)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bali, Booth, and Gibbon, to modify the encrypted eyeglass computer sensor system of Bali and Gibbon to include the method to communicate metadata to the connection device as taught in Booth. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (EST).
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached on (571) 272-3685. 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.
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435