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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, Line 2, “the respective targe vehicle…” should read “the respective target vehicle…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the application regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the respective data handling approach” in line 9, as to which respective data handling approach the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the digital content” in line 2, as to whether this digital content is the same as the digital web content cited earlier in the claimed limitations. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the digital content” in line 2, as to whether this digital content is the same as the digital web content cited earlier in the claimed limitations. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the respective data handling approach” in line 7, as to which respective data handling approach the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the respective data handling approach” in line 9, as to which respective data handling approach the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 17-19, the claims are rejected because they are dependent to a previous rejected claim.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of issued Patent 12,287,904. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the reference patent covers all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and, as such, anticipates claim 1 of the instant application.
Instant Application No. 19/173,514
Reference Patent No. 12,287,904
Claim 1: A method comprising: generating, using artificial intelligence algorithms and a training dataset, at least one machine learning model that is configured to generate scores for multiple attributes of one or more data handling approaches associated with a vehicle and/or an in-vehicle unit of the vehicle that handles data of a user,
wherein the training dataset comprises a plurality of labelled documents that define the one or more data handling approaches with the vehicles and/or the in-vehicle unit, and wherein each labelled document has scores pre-assigned to one or more of the multiple attributes of the respective data handling approach associated therewith;
receiving identification information;
determining one or more data handling approaches of a target vehicle and/or a target in-vehicle unit, in either case, which are associated with the identification information and that handles data of the user;
analyzing the one or more data handling approaches associated with the target vehicle or the target in-vehicle unit;
generating, using the at least one machine learning model and the one or more data handling approaches that have been analyzed, scores for the multiple attributes of each of the one or more data handling approaches; and
processing the scores the generate a data handling score for one or more both of the target vehicle or in-vehicle unit.
Claim 1: A vehicle data security method, comprising the steps of: generating, using artificial intelligence algorithms and a training dataset, at least one machine learning model that is configured to generate scores for multiple attributes of one or more personal data handling approaches associated with a vehicle and/or an in-vehicle unit of the vehicle that handles personal data of a user,
wherein the training dataset comprises a plurality of labelled documents that define the one or more personal data handling approaches associated with the vehicles and/or the in-vehicle unit, and wherein each labelled document has scores pre-assigned to one or more of the multiple attributes of the respective personal data handling approach associated therewith;
receiving vehicle identification information;
determining one or more personal data handling approaches associated with a target vehicle linked to the vehicle identification information and at least one in-vehicle unit of the target vehicle that handles personal data of the user,
semantically analyzing the one or more personal data handling approaches associated with the target vehicle and the at least one in-vehicle unit of the target vehicle;
generating, using the at least one machine learning model and the one or more personal data handling approaches that have been semantically analyzed, scores for the multiple attributes of each of the one or more personal data handling approaches; and
processing the scores the generate a privacy score for the target vehicle.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to generating dynamically variable multi-dimensional data security and privacy ratings for vehicles.
a. TANG et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0031655) discloses techniques of automatic vehicle configuration based on sensor data. Tang further discloses a vehicle determining a set of scores indicating a set of likelihoods of a set of vehicle configurations being a preferred vehicle configuration, based on a data model performing a machine-learning-driven analysis of attribute data identifying the set of attributes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights