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 .
1. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended as filed on 07/08/2026.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are canceled as filed on 07/08/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHRISTOPHER (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0074002 A1), hereinafter Chris, in view of Sadeh et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/018353 A1), hereinafter Sadeh, and in further view of Brush et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2013/0232552 A1), hereinafter Brush.
2. With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Chris taught method comprising: listening, by a user computing device, for a broadcast signal of a data collection device within a monitored environment (0022, where the voice signal is the broadcast signal); determining, by the user computing device, in response to receiving the broadcast signal, whether to allow or reject data collection by the data collection device (0055, where the distorted audio is not recording the proper audio under broadest reasonable interpretation).
However, Chris did not explicitly state in response to the user computing device determining to reject data collection by the data collection device, sending, by the user computing device, a user signature of a user of the user computing device to the data collection device; and instructing, by the user computing device, the data collection device to not record data corresponding to the user signature when recording data associated with activities or interactions within the monitored environment. On the other hand, Sadeh did teach in response to the user computing device determining to reject data collection by the data collection device, sending, by the user computing device, a user signature of a user of the user computing device to the data collection device (0008, where the signature is the signature of the user set data type. Further, Chris also taught the voice signature in 0026); and instructing, by the user computing device, the data collection device to not record data corresponding to the user signature when recording data associated with activities or interactions within the monitored environment (0023-0024). Both of the systems are directed towards monitoring data capture, based on user data capture settings, and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Chris, to utilize specific permission transmittal settings, as taught by Sadeh, in order to ensure that all of the relevant systems maintain the desired permission settings.
However, Chris did not explicitly state that the privacy setting was received via a user interface; wherein determining whether to allow or reject data collection is based on the privacy preferences of a user of the user computing device; sending by the user device a user signature of the computing device and the privacy preferences of the user of the user computing device to the data collection device, wherein the user signature is one of an image of the user or a voiceprint signature of the user. On the other hand, Brush did teach that the privacy setting was received via a user interface; wherein determining whether to allow or reject data collection is based on the privacy preferences of a user of the user computing device (0013 & 0015); sending by the user device a user signature of the computing device and the privacy preferences of the user of the user computing device to the data collection device (0045-0046), wherein the user signature is one of an image of the user or a voiceprint signature of the user (0048, where this, at least, teaches the image limitation). Both of the systems of Chriss and Brush are directed towards monitoring data capture, based on user data capture settings, and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Chris, to utilize specific permission transmittal settings, as taught by Brush, in order to ensure that all of the relevant systems maintain the desired permission settings.
3. As for claims 2, 9, and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Sadeh taught tracking user activities and interactions of the user for a first period of time and storing data corresponding to the user activities and interactions in a historical database; executing computer logic based on a semantic model to extract entities and intents from the data, stored in the historical database, corresponding to the tracked user activities and interactions; and building one or more user themes based on the extracted entities and intents (0072, the learning of the individual user’s privacy preferences).
4. As for claims 3, 10, and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 2, 9, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Sadeh taught tracking received unsolicited communications for a second period of time and storing data corresponding to characteristics of the unsolicited communications; and executing computer logic based on a semantic model to extract one or more message themes from the data corresponding to the characteristics of the unsolicited communications (0046, the advertisement).
5. As for claims 4, 11, and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 3, 10, and 17 (respectively). In addition, Sadeh taught using a vector database to correlate the one or more user themes with the one or more message themes; determining one or more triggers based on the correlations from the vector database; and outputting an alert to the user, via the user computing device, in response to a trigger, of the one or more triggers, being active, wherein the alert specifies that user activity or interaction was recorded and caused a subsequent unsolicited communication (0068 & 0072).
6. As for claims 5, 12, and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 3, 10, and 17 (respectively). In addition, Sadeh taught using a knowledge graph to correlate the one or more user themes with one or more marketing themes; determining one or more relationships based on the correlations from the knowledge graph; and outputting an alert to the user, via the user computing device, in response to a relationship, of the one or more relationships, being true, wherein the alert specifies that user activity or interaction was recorded and caused a subsequent unsolicited communication (0046, the privacy nudge. See also: 0027, the notifications).
7. As for claims 6 and 13, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 8 (respectively). In addition, Chris taught wherein the data collection device filters out data matching the user signature from a recording of activities or interactions within the monitored environment (0007, where the filtered out data is, at least, all audio once the system is activated).
8. As for claims 7, 14, and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Chris taught wherein the user signature is one of an image of the user or a voiceprint signature of the user (0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights