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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0376328 by Nagar et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0020328 by Gordon et al. and U.S. Patent Number 9,477,574 to Tumanov et al.
As to claim 1, Nagar teaches a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: collecting, at a user activity monitor server (ref. no. 501), content data that is associated with a user, wherein the content data includes explicitly generated content generated by the user (paragraph 73, external data sources read on the claimed “explicitly” generated content) and implicitly generated content generated by monitoring activities of the user through sensors (paragraphs 73 and 77, IoT data is generated by sensors monitoring the user), wherein the monitoring activities of the user through the sensors is performed according to monitoring preferences for the user (paragraph 72); associating, at the user activity monitor server, a user ID tag with the content data (paragraphs 72 and 73, data is stored as user-specific manner and there for must be tagged by user ID in order to be stored with respect to each user); storing the content data in a content database (paragraphs 72 and 73); receiving the monitoring preferences for the user and storing the monitoring preferences in a user profiles database (paragraph 72); receiving, at the user activity monitor server, a request for the content data associated with the user ID tag (paragraph 78); retrieving, by the user activity monitor server, the content data associated with the user ID tag (paragraph 78); and sending the content data associated with the user ID tag to a machine learning application (paragraph 81); and, wherein the machine learning application generates artificial intelligence data specific to the user based on the content data (paragraphs 81-92 describe various AI data generation techniques); receiving, by the user activity monitor server and from the machine learning application, output data associated with the user ID tag (paragraphs 81-92); and providing access to the output data through a personal recall application, wherein the personal recall application allows the user or an authorized third party to query and utilize the output data (paragraphs 81-82, output data is provided to virtual agent 603 so that user 601 can utilize the output data); however Nagar does not explicitly teach that the monitoring preferences include temporal settings specifying when the activities of the user can be monitored.
Gordon teaches allowing a user to specify monitoring preferences temporal settings specifying when the implicit activities of the user can be monitored by sensors (paragraphs 29 and 106).
Tumanov teaches allowing a user to specify monitoring preferences temporal settings specifying when the explicit activities of the user can be monitored (claims 1-3 of Tumanov).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the user device management art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nagar regarding collecting user data for processing for AI for providing to a personalized application with the teachings of Gordon and Tumanov for allowing a user to specify temporal setting for monitoring because the privacy concerns discussed in Gordon and Tumanov about the need for schedule management would apply directly to the data collected and stored by Nagar.
As to claims 2 and 5, see app 603 of Nagar.
As to claims 3 and 4, any user could use app 603 of Nagar.
As to claims 6-9, see paragraph 17 of Nagar.
As to claim 10, see paragraph 72 of Nagar.
As to claim 11, see Gordon and Tumanov.
As to claims 12-20, they correspond to limitations in claims 1-11 and are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1-11.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights