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 .
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 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 25 recites "a computer readable data carrier” and claim 26 recites “a data carrier signal” which is defined in the specification to include a computer readable signal. A memorandum from Director Kappos was issued January 26, 2010 entitled "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media" hereinafter "Kappos 1/26/2010". According to "Kappos 1/26/2010", in the absence of a definition in the specification explicitly excluding transitory propagating/transmission type memory medium, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a computer readable medium" is interpreted to include both "non-transitory tangible media" and "transitory propagating signals" medium where the latter renders the claim non-statutory. "Kappos 1/26/2010" directs the patent community to overcome 101 rejections of this nature by amending the claim language to add the limitation "non- transitory" to the claim, for example "processor readable non-transitory media".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “a subset of a plurality of types of sensor data…”. and “the selected subset” It is unclear whether this ‘subset’ is the same or different from the previously recited ‘subset’ in claim 1. This rejection similarly applies to claims 4, 6, 9, 15, 17, 19, 21 as to the recitation of ‘the selected subset’ and ‘the subset’.
Claim 17 recites “method of either of claim 15”. Claim 23 recites “the method of any of claim 2”. The meaning of these recitations is unclear.
Claims 9, 14, 16-18, 20-22 recite the word ‘optionally’ followed by additional subject matter. It is unclear whether the what follows the recitation of ‘optionally’ is required by claims in that it does not appear that the word ‘optionally’ is being used to outline alternative limitations. Thus, due to these ambiguities, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention rendering the claims indefinite.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is being rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of a claim upon which it depends.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, 18,, 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevens et al. (US Pub. 20180082572 A1)
Stevens discloses the following subject matter:
1. A user device comprising:
one or more sensors configured to obtain a plurality of types of sensor data for assisting retrieval of the user device and/or apprehension of a thief of the user device (para. 38);
a processor configured to: determine a likelihood that a current user of the user device is an authorised user (para. 41); and
responsive thereto, select a subset of the plurality of types of sensor data, the subset's size being determined in dependence on the determined likelihood (para. 59);
the user device further comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit one or more reports for assisting retrieval of the user device and/or apprehension of a thief of the user device, each report comprising one or more of the selected subset of the plurality of types of sensor data (para. 59).
2. A computer-implemented method comprising selecting a subset of a plurality of types of sensor data obtained by a user device for the user device to report externally for assisting retrieval of the user device and/or apprehension of a thief of the user device, the subset's size being determined in dependence on a determined likelihood that a current user of a user device is an authorised user and in response to determination of that likelihood. (para. 59)
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising determining the likelihood that the current user of the user device is an authorised user. (para. 41-42)
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, performed by a data processing device external to the user device, the computer-implemented method further comprising instructing the user device to transmit one or more reports, each report comprising one or more of the selected subset of the plurality of types of sensor data, that data being current. (Fig. 2, para. 26)
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the user device is instructed to transmit the one or more reports to the data processing device performing the method, the method further comprising: receiving the one or more reports; and responsive thereto, acting on data comprised in the one or more reports by: storing data comprised in the one or more reports; and/or issuing an alert based on the data comprised in the one or more reports; and/or transmitting instructions to the user device to lock, shut down, or restrict and/or modify its functionality; and/or initiating a retrieval operation to retrieve the user device; and/or initiating an apprehension operation to apprehend a thief of the user device. (paras. 38-39, 44-45)
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, performed by the user device, the computer-implemented method further comprising: obtaining the plurality of types of sensor data; and transmitting one or more reports, each report comprising one or more of the selected subset of the plurality of types of sensor data, that data being current. (para. 59)
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving instructions to lock, shut down, or restrict and/or modify functionality in response to the one or more reports; and following those instructions. (para. 59)
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising, for each of the plurality of types of sensor data, obtaining associated metadata pertaining to one or more of: resource consumption, accuracy, precision, utility, and confidentiality. (para. 35-37, 64)
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determination of the likelihood is performed in dependence on obtained data of one or more of the plurality of types of sensor data. (para. 54-56)
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determination of the likelihood is performed by biometric authentication. (para. 36- gait analysis)
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determination of the likelihood is performed by continuous authentication. (para. 40)
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising, prior to determination of the likelihood, performing a calibration process for a particular authorised user. (para. 39)
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein selection of the one or more types of sensor data is performed further in dependence on the calibration process; optionally wherein the determined likelihood on which the selection is based is normalised based on an average likelihood that the current user is the particular authorised user determined during a calibration period when that authorised user was known to be using the user device. (paras. 39, 42)
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising determining a reporting frequency for each of the selected subset of the plurality of types of sensor data. (para. 40)
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein determination of the reporting frequency is performed in dependence on the determined likelihood; optionally wherein reporting frequency is determined to be higher the lower the determined likelihood. (paras. 39-42)
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein determination of the reporting frequency is performed in dependence on the calibration process; optionally such that the reporting frequency is higher the higher the ratio between: an average likelihood the user is the particular authorised user determined during a calibration period when that authorised user was known to be using the user device; and the determined likelihood that the current user is that authorised user. (paras. 39-42)
27. The user device of claim 1, wherein the user device is a mobile user device. (para. 13)
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected as applied to claim 2 because a corresponding system would have been necessitated to carry forth the method steps of claim 2. The applied prior art also discloses the corresponding architecture.
Regarding claims 24-26, it merely recites a computer program that when executed, performs the functional steps of method claim 2, and thus, rejected for the same rationale.
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 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens and further in view of Fu et al. (US Pub. 20200210561 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Steven does not specifically disclose determining a resolution of at least one of the selected subset of the plurality of types of sensor data to be reported. However, in the related art of attack detection utilizing different types of sensors, Fu teaches determining a resolution of at least one of the selected subset of the plurality of types of sensor data to be reported (see para. 28, 32, 46-47) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Stevens with the disclosure of Fu as a known way to of adjusting the amount of compute resources required in collecting sensor data base on a users’ risk level.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sevens and Fu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein determination of the resolution is performed in dependence on the determined likelihood; optionally wherein resolution is determined to be higher the lower the determined likelihood. (Fu- para. 28, 32, 46-47, Stevens- paras. 39-42)
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Sevens and Fu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein determination of the resolution is performed in dependence on the calibration process; optionally such that the resolution is higher the higher the ratio between: an average likelihood the user is the particular authorised user determined during a calibration period when that authorised user was known to be using the user device; and the determined likelihood that the current user is that authorised user. (Fu- para. 28, 32, 46-47, Stevens- paras. 39-42)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 15 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A CORUM JR whose telephone number is (303)297-4234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM 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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
WILLIAM A. CORUM JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2433
william.corum2@uspto.gov
/WILLIAM A CORUM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights