DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 8/4/2025. Claim(s) 1-28 is/are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority/Benefit
Applicant’s priority claim is hereby acknowledged of CON of 18/192,217 03/29/2023 PAT 12400034, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 8/20/2025 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,400,034. Although the claims at issue are not identical in form, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Instant claims 1-7 are anticipated by patented claims 1-7, respectively. Instant claims 8-14 are anticipated by patented claims 1-7, respectively. Instant claims 15-21 are anticipated by patented claims 1-7, respectively. Instant claims 22-28 are anticipated by patented claims 1-7, respectively.
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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancuso (US 2020/0311424 A1), in view of Chien (US 2024/0378277 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, *** teaches:
“A method comprising: determining, by a server, an indication of a location associated with content captured by a device (Mancuso, Fig 2, ¶ 64-66 augmentation server 202 receives the location of first user device 204-1 which captures an image); sending, to a user device and based on the user device being associated with the location (Mancuso, ¶ 66 device 204-2 is determined, based on its location, to be within a given proximity of device 402-1); and based on receiving an indication, from the user device (Mancuso, ¶ 70 teaches device 402-2 receiving from server 202 a request for shared content and receiving a response for the request), causing obfuscation of at least a portion of the content (Mancuso, ¶ 78-79 teaches blocking sensitive information with an opaque bubble over protected content)”.
Mancuso does not, but in related art, Chien teaches:
“data indicating one or more content features associated with the content (Chien, ¶ 56-59 as well as ¶ 52 teaches sending a request for approval of access for a biometric feature identified in an image or video such as a face for approval based on the permission settings which required the access request to be made);
and that at least a portion of the one or more content features associated with the content corresponds to at least a portion of a user identity feature stored on the user device (Chien, ¶ 56-59 as well as ¶ 52 teaches receiving a response for approval of access for a biometric feature identified in an image or video such as a face for approval based on the permission settings which required the access request to be made which result in the face being obfuscated)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mancuso and Chien, to modify the proximity based content sharing system of Mancuso to include the process to request permission to view sensitive information from the user as taught in Chien. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, and 23, Mancuso in view of Chien teaches:
“The method of claim 1 (Mancuso in view of Chien teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising receiving, by the server and from the user device, an indication that at least one user associated with the user device has enabled a privacy setting associated with the user identity feature stored on the user device (Chien, ¶ 52, 56-59 teaches making privacy settings for the user information)”.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, and 24, Mancuso in view of Chien teaches:
“The method of claim 1 (Mancuso in view of Chien teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the data indicating the one or more content features associated with the content comprises data indicating one or more physical features associated with one or more users depicted by the content, wherein the data comprises one or more of a plurality of vectors (Chien, ¶ 56 teaches vectors of a face), a facial signature, (Chien, ¶ 30 teaches a facial signature), or a machine model generated representation (Chien ¶ 56 teaches a machine model for a face)”.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, and 25, Mancuso in view of Chien teaches:
“The method of claim 1 (Mancuso in view of Chien teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the user identity feature comprises data indicating one or more physical features associated with at least one user associated with the user device (Chien ¶ 56 teaches a machine model for a face)”.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, and 27, Mancuso in view of Chien teaches:
“The method of claim 1 (Mancuso in view of Chien teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the at least a portion of the content caused to be obfuscated corresponds to the portion of the one or more content features, and wherein causing obfuscation of the at least the portion of the content comprises causing one or more of blurring of the at least a portion of the content or replacing the at least a portion of the content with a synthetic content portion (Mancuso, ¶ 78-79 teaches blocking sensitive information with an opaque bubble over protected content. Chien, ¶ 56-59 as well as ¶ 52 teaches receiving a response for approval of access for a biometric feature identified in an image or video such as a face for approval based on the permission settings which required the access request to be made which result in the face being obfuscated)”.
Regarding claims 7, 14, 21, and 28, Mancuso in view of Chien teaches:
“The method of claim 1 (Mancuso in view of Chien teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein receiving the indication, from the user device, that the at least the portion of the one or more content features corresponds to the at least the portion of the user identity feature comprises receiving an identifier associated with the portion of the one or more content features (Mancuso, ¶ 64-66 teaches determining an identifier with the identified face in the captured image)”.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mancuso, in view of Chien in view of Kolhi (US 2024/0288929 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, and 26, Mancuso in view of Chien teaches:
“The method of claim 1 (Mancuso in view of Chien teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Mancuso in view of Chien does not, but in related art Kolhi teaches:
“wherein the user identity feature is not accessible by the server or the device (Kolhi, ¶ 71 teaches XR headset capturing images of a user and hashing biometrics which can be sent to a service so as to not send the actual biometrics to the server or the other device)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mancuso, Kolhi and Chien, to modify the proximity based content sharing system of Mancuso and Chien to include the process to hash biometrics for access control as taught in Kolhi. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights