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 Office action is responsive to Preliminary Amendment filed on 11/25/2024.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2024, 02/17/2025, 03/19/2025, 04/08/2025, 04/16/2025, 05/15/2025, 06/05/2025, 06/27/2025, 09/02/2025, 09/09/2025, 09/26/2025, 11/11/2025, 12/08/2025, 12/18/2025, and 01/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-21 of U. S. Patent No. 12,153,678 B2. Although the conflicting claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims contain elements of the patent claims, therefore, the examined claim is anticipated by the patent claim as follows:
Current Application No. 18/958,440
US Patent No. 12,153,678 B2
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 8
Independent Claim 8
Independent Claim 15
Independent Claim 15
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite monitoring and analyzing user information with analytics to learn identifying actions and features of a user; and filtering acquired user information to determine whether to use the acquired user information to learn additional identifying actions and features of the user, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in human mind but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the monitoring, analyzing, and filtering steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of monitoring and analyzing user information with analytics to learn identifying actions and features of a user; and filtering acquired user information to determine whether to use the acquired user information to learn additional identifying actions and features of the user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the monitoring, analyzing, and filtering steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-21 are not patent eligible.
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)(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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Budman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0066071 A1) hereinafter Budman.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Budman discloses a method and device (fig. 12, computer system 1200) comprising:
a non-transitory memory (fig. 12, memory, 1204/1206/1216) for storing an application (para 0104, the storage unit 1216 includes a machine-readable medium 1222 on which is stored instructions 1224 (e.g., software), the application configured for:
monitoring and analyzing user information with analytics (para 0028, receives motion data and performs a series of analyses to generate an inference that correspond to an identify of a user associated with the motion data from a population of users) to learn identifying actions and features of the user (para 0056, For example, if a target user wears wearable sensor configured to continuously monitor the target user,….. As other examples, a computing device previously in motion that goes still, an operating software on a computing device that detects that a user has entered a vehicle, or a user crossing a geofenced boundary may similarly trigger the boundary of an identity block, para 0021, For example, although two users may swing their arms while walking and holding their phone, each user swings their arms at a different rate or cadence, and para 0096, For example, a target user may be determined to be behaving different from their past behavior (e.g., using different doors from what they had in the past or behaving differently from the peers, and para 0106, Because characteristics of a user's movement and activities are unique to individual users, the identity verification system 130 is able to accurately verify a user's identity with varying levels of confidence); and
filtering acquired user information to determine whether to use the acquired user information to learn additional identifying actions and features of the user (para 0053, The identity block generator 220 inputs each segment of motion data into the motion classifier model to output a motion classification for each segment. As illustrated in FIG. 4, segment 410 is classified as movement m.sub.1, segment 430 is classified as movement m.sub.2, segment 450, segment 460, segment 470, and segment 480 are classified as movement m.sub.3, segments 420, 440, and 490 get classified as multiple movement types and are discarded. Because each classification of m.sub.1 to m.sub.3 represents a different movement or type of movement, therefore the identity block generator identifies motion discontinuities d.sub.1, d.sub.2, and d.sub.3 at the transition between m.sub.1 and m.sub.2, m.sub.2 and m.sub.3, and at the end of m.sub.3 respectively. Because segments 450, 460, 470, and 480 were classified as the same movement (m.sub.3), the identity block generator 220 confirm that there is no motion discontinuity between these four segments); and
a processor (fig. 12, processor 1202) configured for processing the application (para 0101, read instructions from a machine-readable medium and execute them in a processor).
Regarding claim 15, Budman discloses a server device (para 0102, The machine may be a server computer) comprising:
a non-transitory memory (fig. 12, memory, 1204/1206/1216) for storing an application (para 0104, the storage unit 1216 includes a machine-readable medium 1222 on which is stored instructions 1224 (e.g., software), the application configured for:
receiving user information from a user device (abstract, an identity verification system receives a sequence of motion data from a mobile device operated by a target user);
monitoring and analyzing the user information with analytics (para 0028, receives motion data and performs a series of analyses to generate an inference that correspond to an identify of a user associated with the motion data from a population of users) to learn identifying actions and features of the user (para 0056, For example, if a target user wears wearable sensor configured to continuously monitor the target user,….. As other examples, a computing device previously in motion that goes still, an operating software on a computing device that detects that a user has entered a vehicle, or a user crossing a geofenced boundary may similarly trigger the boundary of an identity block, para 0021, For example, although two users may swing their arms while walking and holding their phone, each user swings their arms at a different rate or cadence, and para 0096, For example, a target user may be determined to be behaving different from their past behavior (e.g., using different doors from what they had in the past or behaving differently from the peers, and para 0106, Because characteristics of a user's movement and activities are unique to individual users, the identity verification system 130 is able to accurately verify a user's identity with varying levels of confidence); and
filtering acquired user information to determine whether to use the acquired user information to learn additional identifying actions and features of the user (para 0053, The identity block generator 220 inputs each segment of motion data into the motion classifier model to output a motion classification for each segment. As illustrated in FIG. 4, segment 410 is classified as movement m.sub.1, segment 430 is classified as movement m.sub.2, segment 450, segment 460, segment 470, and segment 480 are classified as movement m.sub.3, segments 420, 440, and 490 get classified as multiple movement types and are discarded. Because each classification of m.sub.1 to m.sub.3 represents a different movement or type of movement, therefore the identity block generator identifies motion discontinuities d.sub.1, d.sub.2, and d.sub.3 at the transition between m.sub.1 and m.sub.2, m.sub.2 and m.sub.3, and at the end of m.sub.3 respectively. Because segments 450, 460, 470, and 480 were classified as the same movement (m.sub.3), the identity block generator 220 confirm that there is no motion discontinuity between these four segments); and
a processor (fig. 12, processor 1202) configured for processing the application (para 0101, read instructions from a machine-readable medium and execute them in a processor).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Budman discloses the device of claim 8 wherein the application is further for activating tracking with the analytics (para 0106).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Budman discloses the device of claim 8 wherein the analytics include related analytics and unrelated analytics (para 0028).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Budman discloses the device of claim 10 wherein the related analytics share the shared traits of the analytics (para 0037).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Budman discloses the device of claim 8 wherein filtering the acquired user information includes ignoring the acquired user information (para 0053).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Budman discloses the device of claim 8 wherein filtering the acquired user information includes classifying the acquired user information in a separate classification (para 0053).
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.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budman as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0110528 A1) hereinafter Gupta.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Budman discloses the device of claim 8 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Gupta discloses wherein further comprising adjusting the analytics including providing feedback from one of the analytics to another of the analytics (para 0102, Such feedback communications between the behavior observer module 202 and the behavior analyzer module 206 enable the mobile computing device 102 to recursively increase the granularity of the observations (i.e., make finer or more detailed observations) or change the features/behaviors that are observed until a collective behavior is classified as benign or non-benign, a source of a suspicious or performance-degrading behavior is identified, until a processing or battery consumption threshold is reached, or until the device processor determines that the source of the suspicious or performance-degrading device behavior cannot be identified from further changes, adjustments, or increases in observation granularity). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Budman to include adjusting the analytics including providing feedback from one of the analytics to another of the analytics as taught by Gupta in order to enable the mobile computing device 102 to adjust or modify the behavior vectors and classifier models without consuming an excessive amount of the computing device's processing, memory, or energy resources (Gupta, para 0102).
Conclusion
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 BAOTRAN N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-8156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
/BAOTRAN N TO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435