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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, 16-20, 25-26, 30-24, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. [US patent 12249337, hereinafter refers '337].
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation of “a wearable device configured to: emit an encrypted message comprising a pilot portion and a token portion as an unnoticeable message, and receive the unnoticeable message as a bone conduction signal; a decryption engine configured to: process the bone conduction signal from the one or more receivers, decrypt a processed bone conduction signal via a shared key, and separate a bone conduction token portion from a decrypted bone conduction signal; and an authentication engine configured to: in response to a comparison of the bone conduction signal and the pilot portion exceeding a preselected threshold, authenticate a user, and verify bone conduction signal authenticity via the bone conduction token portion and the token portion” of claim limitation of “the message comprising a pilot portion and a token portion…receive the unnoticeable message emitted from the one or more transmitters as a bone conduction signal…process the bone conduction signal from the one or more receivers to thereby generate a processed bone conduction signal, decrypt the processed bone conduction signal via the shared key to thereby generate a decrypted bone conduction signal, and separate a bone conduction token portion from the decrypted bone conduction signal…in response to a comparison of the analyzed bone conduction signal and the pilot portion exceeding a preselected threshold, authenticate a user, and verify bone conduction signal authenticity via the bone conduction token portion and the token portion” of claim 1 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 1 is met by the claim limitation of claim 1 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation of “wherein the non-intrusive device authentication occurs at one or more of (a) a request for non-intrusive device authentication occurs at any time or (b) an iterative interval, each iterative interval occurs sequentially and substantially simultaneously” corresponds to claim limitation “wherein the non-intrusive device authentication occurs iteratively, and wherein each iteration occurs sequentially and substantially simultaneously” of claim 2 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 2 is met by the claim limitation of claim 2 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation of “wherein the decryption engine is further configured to, when the bone conduction signal is processed, cancels noise in the bone conduction signal, and wherein noise cancelled from the bone conduction signal includes human activity and other activity, wherein the human activity includes speech, footsteps, respiration, or noise generated by dental articulation or other user movement, and wherein the other activity includes noise generated by music, speech from other sources, or background noise” corresponds to claim limitation “wherein noise cancelled from the bone conduction signal includes human activity and other activity, wherein the human activity includes speech, footsteps, respiration, or noise generated by dental articulation or other user movement, and wherein the other activity includes noise generated by music, speech from other sources, or background noise” of claim 6 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 3 is met by the claim limitation of claim 6 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation of “wherein the pilot portion comprises one or more of (a) data corresponding to a user's initializing bone conduction signal or (b) a Zadoff-Chu sequence along one or more subcarriers of a carrier of the encrypted message, and wherein the token portion comprises one or more of a user identification, a device identification, a timestamp, or random bits” corresponds to claim limitation “wherein the pilot portion comprises a Zadoff-Chu sequence along one or more subcarriers of a carrier of the encrypted message” of claim 10 of ‘337 and “wherein the token portion comprises one or more of a user identification, a device identification, a timestamp, or random bits” of claim 12 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 4 is met by the claim limitation of claim 10 and 12 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation of “wherein the wearable device comprises bone conduction speakers to emit bone conduction signals and in-ear microphones to receive the bone conduction signals” corresponds to claim limitation “wherein the one or more transmitters comprise bone conduction speakers” of claim 16 of ‘337 and “wherein the one or more receivers comprise in-ear microphones” of claim 17 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 5 is met by the claim limitation of claim 16 and 17 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation of “wherein the wearable device comprises a plurality of transmitters, and wherein the plurality of transmitters are configured to transmit the encrypted message via one or more of alternating transmissions, random transmission, or simultaneous transmission, and wherein the one or more receivers comprises at least two receivers, wherein one receiver is positioned in a contralateral car canal and another receiver is positioned in an ipsilateral ear canal, and wherein, during transmission of the encrypted message, the one receiver and the another receiver are configured to receive the encrypted message as the bone conduction signal” corresponds to claim limitation “wherein the one or more transmitters comprises a plurality of transmitters, and wherein the plurality of transmitters are configured to transmit the encrypted message via one or more of alternating transmissions, random transmission, or simultaneous transmission” of claim 18 of ‘337 and “wherein the one or more receivers comprises at least two receivers, wherein one receiver is positioned in a contralateral ear canal and another receiver is positioned in an ipsilateral ear canal, and wherein, during transmission of the encrypted message, the one receiver and the another receiver are configured to receive the encrypted message as the bone conduction signal” of claim 19 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 6 is met by the claim limitation of claim 18 and 19 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation of “wherein the encrypted message comprises a message transmitted as one or more of an ultra-high frequency or an ultra-low frequency” corresponds to claim limitation of ”wherein the encrypted message comprises a message transmitted as one or more of an ultra-high frequency or an ultra-low frequency” of claim 20 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 7 is met by the claim limitation of claim 20 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation of “wherein the decryption engine processes the bone conduction signal by one or more of filtering, denoising, segmenting, or normalizing the bone conduction signal, and wherein authentication is further based on a score exceeding a threshold, the authentication engine configured to generate the score by applying a classifier generated by a machine learning model to the bone conduction signal” corresponds to claim limitation “wherein the decryption engine processes the bone conduction signal by one or more of filtering, denoising, segmenting, or normalizing the bone conduction signal” of claim 25 of ‘337 and claim limitation of “wherein authentication is further based on a score exceeding a threshold, the authentication engine configured to generate the score by applying a classifier generated by a machine learning model to the bone conduction signal” of claim 26 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 8 is met by the claim limitation of claim 25 and 26 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitation of “generating a waveform comprising a pilot portion and a token portion; encrypting the waveform via a shared key; modulating, via one or more preselected frequencies, an encrypted waveform; transmitting a modulated encrypted waveform as a bone conduction signal; receiving the bone conduction signal at one or more receivers; denoising the bone conduction signal; demodulating the bone conduction signal via the one or more preselected frequencies; decrypting a demodulated bone conduction signal via the shared key; and authenticating the user based on the token portion and the pilot portion” corresponding to claim limitation of “demodulating the bone conduction signal via the one or more preselected frequencies; decrypting a demodulated bone conduction signal via the shared key; and authenticating the user based on the token portion and the pilot portion” of claim 30 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 9 is met by the claim limitation of claim 30 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation of “wherein transmission of the modulated encrypted waveform and reception of the bone conduction signal occurs via a smart device” corresponds to claim limitation of “wherein a smart device comprises the one or more transmitters and the one or more receivers” of claim 31 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 10 is met by the claim limitation of claim 31 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation is same as the claim limitation of claim 32 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 12, the claim limitation is same as the claim limitation of claim 33 of ‘337. Regarding claim 13, the claim limitation is same as the claim limitation of claim 34 of ‘337.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation of “wherein the authentication circuitry is further configured to, in response to reception of user authentication and bone conduction signal verification: enable user operation of the smart device; and enable a user to access one or more of corresponding user data or applications corresponding to one or more of a user's permissions or a user's purchased applications” corresponding to claim limitation of “wherein the authentication circuitry is further configured to, in response to reception of the user authentication and bone conduction signal verification, enable a user to access one or more of corresponding user data or applications corresponding to one or more of a user's permissions or a user's purchased applications” of claim 39 of ‘337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of claim 15 is met by the claim limitation of claim 39 of ‘337.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 37, and 40-44 of prior U.S. Patent No. [ US patent 12249337 ]. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAI Y CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5679. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/CAI Y CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights