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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/05/2025.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, 14 and 17 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C 112 (a) and 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s arguments and/or claim amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oppenheimer US 20140089243.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are objected for the following informalities:
The phrase “activities that are indicative of human interactions” indefinite because the scope is open-ended. It is unclear if the phrase intended to include many different sensor readings. does it mean physical touch? Motion? Voice? What threshold or criteria must be met?
The phrase “after beginning when the human interaction is determined to have occurred has elapsed” the phrase is grammatically not correct and could be interpreted in multiple ways and ambiguity in sequencing and timing could make it unclear exactly when termination occurs, does “elapsed” refer to a fixed time after the interaction? does it mean after the interaction ends? is “beginning” referring to the start of monitoring or to the start of the intera10ction?
Claims 1, 14 and 17 recite the term “in a concealed manner” in line 10 should be amended to “said concealed manner” or “the concealed manner” to set proper antecedent basis for the same term recited earlier in the claims in line 4. 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 1-10 and 12-21 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. Claims 1, 14 and 17 have been amended to recite
The term “concealed manner” that is subjective and could be interpreted differently and make the scope of the claim unclear. Does it mean physically hidden from view? Does it mean covert operation without user knowledge? Does it mean preventing the subject from detecting that monitoring is occurring? The term is a term of degree without objective criteria and require clarification.
The phrase “activities that are indicative of human interactions” indefinite because the scope is open-ended. It is unclear if the phrase intended to include many different sensor readings. does it mean physical touch? Motion? Voice? What threshold or criteria must be met?
The phrase “after beginning when the human interaction is determined to have occurred has elapsed” the phrase is grammatically not correct and could be interpreted in multiple ways and ambiguity in sequencing and timing could make it unclear exactly when termination occurs, does “elapsed” refer to a fixed time after the interaction? does it mean after the interaction ends? is “beginning” referring to the start of monitoring or to the start of the interaction? Dependent claims 2-10, 13 and 18-21 are rejected under the same rationale as they do not cure the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 14 and 17.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipust (US 6,570,610 B1) in view of Thompson (US 2020/0334356 A1) in view of in view of Oppenheimer (US 20140089243).
Regarding claim 1, Kipust Teaches: a method performed by a device to be monitored (Kipust column 4 lines 37-42 performed by PC to be monitored: “controller 118 which controls operation of the security system 100. The controller 118 may take the form of a card contained within the PC 102, contained in a separate housing outside of the PC 102. The controller 118 may also be implemented as software routines executed by the PC 102.”) , the method comprising:
detecting that the device to be monitored is in an idle state in response to an absence of activity for a period of time (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 absence of detected user activity in the vicinity of the device);
initiating in response to said detecting an access monitoring function that monitors for activities that are indicative of human interactions with the device to be monitored (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 security system armed mode turns on after a timer from when activity was last detected; Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device captures and records security violations (human intrusions to the device) in a log when security system is armed);
determining that a human interaction with the device to be monitored has occurred while the device to be monitored is in the idle state (Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device being armed and a security violation occurring causing reporting module to capture information about the security violation);
causing, in response to said determining, the device to be monitored to log the human interaction by capturing, with the camera, one or more images (Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device being armed and a security violation occurring causing reporting module to capture information about the security violation; Kipust Column 10 lines 23-36 Video file may be captured and stored and video and the video file may captured in response to a security violation (see also column 11 lines 18-23 where video file supplements a log presented to the user); examiner’s note: a video file is a series of one or more images)),
terminating the access monitoring function after a time period beginning when the human interaction is determined to have occurred has elapsed (column 8 line 65 - column 9 line 32 access monitoring is terminated at the point in time where the authorized user disarms the security system);
and enabling an authorized user of the device to be monitored to review the one or more images that document the human interaction log of the one or more human interactions with the device to be monitored (column 5 lines 66-67 log is stored on PC and Kipust column 11 lines 18-23 report of log with video file (series of images) is generated for display on display 104 of the PC (see fig. 1) which would be presented to an authorized user).
Kipust does not teach: wherein a device to be monitored is a mobile device; however, Thomson teaches: wherein a device to be monitored is a mobile device (Thompson [0047] device to be monitored is a smart phone (mobile device)); an access monitoring function (Thompson [0051] device use history system 100) that monitors for activities that are indicative of human interactions with the mobile device ([0047] gives an example of the system recording the device being picked up by an unauthorized user); causing, in response to said determining, the mobile device to log the human interaction by capturing, with the camera, one or more images (“Thompson [0047] “If the internal device 208 senses motion of the secured electronic device 102, preferably after the secured electronic device 102 has been motionless for some predefined threshold duration, then the sensed motion would cause generation of the trigger to acquire the image information and supplemental information.”) and enabling an authorized user of the mobile device to review the one or more images that document the human interaction with the mobile device (Thompson [0032] “Then, the retrieved images and/or supplemental information are communicated to the user's secured electronic device 102 and/or to another electronic device that is being used by the user. In practice, the image and/or supplemental information can then be retrieved from the data storage system 106 and be communicated to the user's smart phone 102a for presentation on their smart phone 102a at a later time and/or a later date.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kipust to be applied to a mobile device as a device to be monitored as taught by, Thompson, as they were of interest in terms of monitoring and logging of unauthorized used prior to the date of filing of the claimed invention.
Kipust in view of Thompson does not explicitly discloses initiating in response to said detecting an access monitoring function that monitors, in a concealed manner, for activities that are indicative of human interactions with the mobile; and causing, in response to said determining, the device to be monitored to log the human interaction by capturing, with a camera one or more images in a concealed manner. Oppenheimer in analogous art, however, discloses initiating in response to said detecting an access monitoring function that monitors, in a concealed manner, for activities that are indicative of human interactions with the mobile; and causing, in response to said determining, the device to be monitored to log the human interaction by capturing, with a camera one or more images in a concealed manner ([0021], [0341], [0396, [0404]], a portable item not only has a computational intelligence by which to self-determine that it may be lost, misplaced, misappropriated, wandering, or stolen, but where the item then self-initiates signaling or communications with a legitimate owner or user, without requiring any previous prompting from the legitimate owner or user, … BIRD (200) may employ additional sensor data (700), and/or alternative sensor data (700), to determine if an item (100) is on-person (138.OnP) or off-person (138.OffP).…if such an item has one or more cameras (210.C), the cameras may be used to search the environment for the face of a user. Other BIRD sensing means may be employed as well to make a determination if the item (100) is on-person (138.OnP) or off-person (138.OffP))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kipust and Thompson to include capturing image using a camera in a concealed manner. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to autonomous or passive monitoring that can be performed without user prompting thereby detecting misplaced or unauthorized device (para. [0021], [0404], Oppenheimer).
Regarding claim 2, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches:
The method of claim 1 further comprising, causing the mobile device (Device to be monitored of Thompson [0047] is a mobile device) to capture and log one or more human interactions in a concealed manner. (Thompson [0047] “then the sensed motion would cause generation of the trigger to acquire the image information and supplemental information”; example of supplemental information: Thompson [0042]: “supplemental information may also include a description of the trigger event activity that cause the trigger. For example, but not limited to, the opening or closing of a particular software program using the secured electronic device 102 may be used as supplemental information.” This represents activity on the device [0049] has more examples of trigger events which would generate supplemental information these. These records may be reviewed based on a period of time and are therefore logs: Thompson [0042] “If the user request includes a time or time period, images and/or supplemental information acquired at that user specified time or time period is accessed.”; Covert context: Thompson [0032] “the emulating sound of the shutter closing in not emitted when an image is captured in response to a trigger event activity. Accordingly, the person using the secured electronic device 102 would not become aware of the image capture”, Oppenheimer para ([0021], [0341], [0396, [0404]], camera used to search the environment). The same motivation as claim 1 above applies.
Regarding claim 3, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein detecting that the mobile device is in the idle state comprises: detecting, based on an accelerometer of the mobile device, a change from a period of activity to a prolonged period of inactivity, wherein the prolonged period exceeds a threshold (Thompson [0047] “the internal device 208 may be a type of motion sensing device, such as a micro-electro mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometer or the like. Here, motion of the secured electronic device 102 would be predefined to be a trigger event activity. If the internal device 208 senses motion of the secured electronic device 102, preferably after the secured electronic device 102 has been motionless for some predefined threshold duration, then the sensed motion would cause generation of the trigger to acquire the image information and supplemental information.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Kipust to determine that the mobile device of the combination in view of Thompson was moved after being still for an extended period of time using an accelerometer of the mobile device, as taught by Thompson, in order to potentially detect an unauthorized user attempting to interact with the device while the user is nearby but not paying attention.
Regarding claim 4, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein detecting that the mobile device is in the idle state comprises: detecting that the mobile device has been placed on a surface (Thompson [0047] detecting that the device is motionless for a period of time and further the action of an unauthorized user to “pick up the smart phone” indicates that the device had been placed on a surface).Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Kipust to determine that the mobile device of the combination in view of Thompson was moved after being set down using an accelerometer of the mobile device, as taught by Thompson, in order to potentially detect an unauthorized user attempting to interact with the device while the user is nearby but not paying attention.
Regarding claim 6, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein detecting that the mobile device is in the idle state comprises:
detecting a pattern indicating that the mobile device (device to be detected is mobile device in view of Thompson [0047]) is not being utilized (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 absence of detected user activity in the vicinity of the device and a determination that this absence has ongoing for a period time, meaning device is not being used by the authorized user (is in an idle state)). Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches: The method of claim 2, wherein to monitor for activities that are indicative of human interactions with the device (Kipust column 5 lines 56-57 audio and video inputs are captured during security violation; device is a smart phone (mobile device) in view of Thompson [0047]), movement of the mobile device (Thompson [0047] “Here, motion of the secured electronic device 102 would be predefined to be a trigger event activity”), or utilization of user apps or services on the mobile device (Thompson [0042] “the opening or closing of a particular software program using the secured electronic device 102 may be used as supplemental information”; Oppenheimer para ([0021], [0341], [0396, [0404]], camera used to search the environment). Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8 Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein determining that a human interaction with the mobile device has occurred while the mobile device is in the idle state comprises: detecting, based on output of an accelerometer, a transition from a prolonged period of inactivity that changes with sudden movement indicative of the mobile device being picked up by a person (Thompson [0047] “An unauthorized person may later find and pick up the smart phone 102a. The motion of the smart phone 102a would then cause capture of an image of that person.”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Kipust to determine that the mobile device of the combination in view of Thompson was moved after being set down using an accelerometer of the mobile device, as taught by Thompson, in order to potentially detect an unauthorized user attempting to interact with the device while the user is nearby but not paying attention.
Regarding claim 10, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches: The method of claim 2, wherein causing the mobile device to capture and log one or more human interactions with the mobile device in a concealed manner comprises: causing the mobile device to record human-device interactions in a log for a time period in a concealed manner. (Thompson [0047] “then the sensed motion would cause generation of the trigger to acquire the image information and supplemental information”; example of supplemental information: Thompson [0042]: “supplemental information may also include a description of the trigger event activity that cause the trigger. For example, but not limited to, the opening or closing of a particular software program using the secured electronic device 102 may be used as supplemental information.” This represents activity on the device [0049] has more examples of trigger events which would generate supplemental information these. These records may be reviewed based on a period of time and are therefore logs: Thompson [0042] “If the user request includes a time or time period, images and/or supplemental information acquired at that user specified time or time period is accessed.”; Covert context: Thompson [0032] “the emulating sound of the shutter closing in not emitted when an image is captured in response to a trigger event activity. Accordingly, the person using the secured electronic device 102 would not become aware of the image capture”; Further per Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device being armed and a security violation occurring causing reporting module to capture information about the security violation; Kipust Column 10 lines 23-36 Video file may be captured and stored and video and the video file may captured in response to a security violation (see also column 11 lines 18-23 where video file supplements a log presented to the user); examiner’s note: a video file is a series of one or more images; time period: Kipust column 8 line 65 - column 9 line 32 access monitoring is terminated at the point in time where the authorized user disarms the security system) Oppenheimer para ([0021], [0341], [0396, [0404]], camera used to search the environment)). Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches: The method of claim 2, wherein causing the mobile device to capture and log one or more human interactions with the mobile device in a concealed manner comprises causing the mobile device to detect and record: user inputs to the mobile device (Kipust column 5 lines 56-57 audio and video inputs are captured during security violation; device is a smart phone (mobile device) in view of Thompson [0047]), communication signals of the mobile device (Thompson [0050] a phone call made is a trigger event; Thompson [0041] trigger events cause supplemental information to be recorded including the cause of the trigger, Oppenheimer para ([0021], [0341], [0396, [0404]], camera used to search the environment), or inputs/outputs during a period that commenced when a first activity was detected and terminating at a later point in time (Kipust column 8 lines 11-13 audio and video inputs of an intruder during the security violation the record of these inputs would necessarily terminate at least at some point after the intruder leaves the vicinity of the system). Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein enabling the authorized user of the mobile device to review the one or more images that document the human interaction log of the one or more human interactions with the mobile device comprises: presenting the log via an app on the mobile device (Thompson [0032] “If the user request includes a time or time period, images and/or supplemental information acquired at that user specified time or time period is accessed. Then, the retrieved images and/or supplemental information are communicated to the user's secured electronic device 102 and/or to another electronic device that is being used by the user. In practice, the image and/or supplemental information can then be retrieved from the data storage system 106 and be communicated to the user's smart phone 102a for presentation on their smart phone 102a at a later time and/or a later date.”; Thompson [0051] “The software to execute the electronic device use history system 100 (The access monitoring function of Thompson) may be delivered as an application (commonly referred to as an “App”)” this indicates that the log of images and supplemental information for the time period would be delivered through said app as the app executes the system.; similarly the log may be displayed on the device in Kipust see Kipust column 11 lines 18-23: report of log with video file (series of images) is generated for display on display 104 of the PC). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to be monitored of Kipust to be a mobile device as taught by Thompson and to further have the logs presented to the user in a mobile device app as taught by Thompson, as that would provide a user friendly graphical user interface with which the user can query for and review logs.
Claim 5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer and further view of Blanco et al. (US 2014/0301196 A1), herein referred to as Blanco.
Regarding claim 5, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer teaches: The method of claim 1, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer does not teach, however, Blanco teaches: wherein detecting that the mobile device is in the idle state comprises: inferring absence of user activity based on inactivity of one or more user apps on the mobile device (Blanco [0024] “Determining if a device is inactive (idle)--It could be assumed that if a device (or application) is inactive, the device/application is not actively being used by the user. For example, if a screen lock is present on a device, or if there is a lack of input on the device/application over a predetermined period of time, the device may be considered not actively being used.”; Blanco [0025] device may be a handheld (mobile device)). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kipust and Thompson and Oppenheimer, to determine an idle state of the device through inference when an application is not actively being used in addition to or as an alternative to a reading of an accelerometer as taught by Blanco, in order to have more ways to determine the device has been idle.
Regarding claim 14 Kipust teaches: a device to be monitored comprising: a camera (Kipust fig. 1 110 video camera); at least one hardware processor (Kipust column 3 lines 42-56 microprocessor); and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions (Kipust column 3 lines 42-56 memory), which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the device to be monitored to (column 4 lines 37-55 controller controls operation of the security system and may be implemented as software routines of the PC i.e. in memory to executed by the processor): determine that the device to be monitored has transitioned to an idle state based on a determination that there has been an absence of activity… for a period of time (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 absence of detected user activity in the vicinity of the device and a determination that this absence has ongoing for a period time, meaning device is not being used by the authorized user (is in an idle state));
in response to the idle state being detected, cause the device to be monitored to monitor for human interactions with the device to be monitored (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 security system armed mode turns on after a timer from when activity was last detected; Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device captures and records security violations (human intrusions to the device) in a log when security system is armed);
detect a human interaction with the device to be monitored by an unauthorized user (Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 detection of security violations (human interactions with the device) occurs while the security system is armed (the mode in which the human interactions are being monitored)),
in response to the human interaction with the device to be monitored being detected, cause the camera to capture one or more images, thereby documenting the human interaction with the device to be monitored (Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device being armed and a security violation occurring causing reporting module to capture information about the security violation; Kipust Column 10 lines 23-36 Video file may be captured and stored and video and the video file may captured in response to a security violation (see also column 11 lines 18-23 where video file supplements a log presented to the user); examiner’s note: a video file is a series of one or more images));
and enabling an authorized user of device to be monitored to review the one or more images (column 5 lines 66-67 log is stored on PC and Kipust column 11 lines 18-23 report of log with video file (series of images) is generated for display on display 104 of the PC (see fig. 1)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kipust to be applied to a mobile device as a device to be monitored as taught by, Thompson, as they were of interest in terms of monitoring and logging of unauthorized used prior to the date of filing of the claimed invention.
Kipust does not teach: wherein a device to be monitored is a mobile device; and capture one or more images…in a manner which is imperceptible to the unauthorized user; wherein a device to be monitored is a mobile device (Thompson [0047] device to be monitored is a smart phone (mobile device));
However, Thompson teaches: in response to the human interaction with the device to be monitored being detected, cause the camera to capture one or more images, thereby documenting the human interaction with the device to be monitored, in a manner that is imperceptible to the unauthorized user (“Thompson [0047] “If the internal device 208 senses motion of the secured electronic device 102, preferably after the secured electronic device 102 has been motionless for some predefined threshold duration, then the sensed motion would cause generation of the trigger to acquire the image information and supplemental information.” Covertly/ imperceptible manner: Thompson [0032] “the emulating sound of the shutter closing in not emitted when an image is captured in response to a trigger event activity. Accordingly, the person using the secured electronic device 102 would not become aware of the image capture”) and enabling an authorized user of the mobile device to review the one or more images (Thompson [0032] “Then, the retrieved images and/or supplemental information are communicated to the user's secured electronic device 102 and/or to another electronic device that is being used by the user. In practice, the image and/or supplemental information can then be retrieved from the data storage system 106 and be communicated to the user's smart phone 102a for presentation on their smart phone 102a at a later time and/or a later date.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kipust to be applied to a mobile device as a device to be monitored as taught by, Thompson, as they were of interest in terms of monitoring and logging of unauthorized used prior to the date of filing of the claimed invention.
Kipust in view of Thompson does not explicitly discloses initiating in response the idle state being detected, cause the mobile device to monitor, in a concealed manner and detect an authorized user while the mobile device is in idle state.
Oppenheimer in analogous art, however, initiating in response the idle state being detected, cause the mobile device to monitor, in a concealed manner and detect an authorized user while the mobile device is in idle state. ([0021], [0341], [0396, [0404]], a portable item not only has a computational intelligence by which to self-determine that it may be lost, misplaced, misappropriated, wandering, or stolen, but where the item then self-initiates signaling or communications with a legitimate owner or user, without requiring any previous prompting from the legitimate owner or user, … BIRD (200) may employ additional sensor data (700), and/or alternative sensor data (700), to determine if an item (100) is on-person (138.OnP) or off-person (138.OffP).…if such an item has one or more cameras (210.C), the cameras may be used to search the environment for the face of a user. Other BIRD sensing means may be employed as well to make a determination if the item (100) is on-person (138.OnP) or off-person (138.OffP))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kipust and Thompson to include capturing image using a camera in a concealed manner. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to autonomous or passive monitoring that can be performed without user prompting thereby detecting misplaced or unauthorized device (para. [0021], [0404], Oppenheimer).
Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer does not teach, however, Blanco suggests: wherein the absence of activity for a period of time is involving computer programs that are stored in the at least one non- transitory memory and are executable by the at least one hardware processor (Blanco [0024] “Determining if a device is inactive (idle)--It could be assumed that if a device (or application) is inactive, the device/application is not actively being used by the user. For example, if a screen lock is present on a device, or if there is a lack of input on the device/application over a predetermined period of time, the device may be considered not actively being used.”; Blanco [0025] device may be a handheld (mobile device)). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kipust and Thompson and Oppenheimer, to determine an idle state of the device through inference when an application is not actively being used, as taught by Blanco, in order to allow the determination that a device is idle due to the user not presently interacting with the device and likely not paying attention to it.
Regarding claim 15, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer further view of Blanco teaches: the mobile device of claim 14, further comprising: an accelerometer configured to detect a change from a period of activity to a prolonged period of inactivity that exceeds a threshold (Thompson [0047] “the internal device 208 may be a type of motion sensing device, such as a micro-electro mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometer or the like. Here, motion of the secured electronic device 102 would be predefined to be a trigger event activity. If the internal device 208 senses motion of the secured electronic device 102, preferably after the secured electronic device 102 has been motionless for some predefined threshold duration, then the sensed motion would cause generation of the trigger to acquire the image information and supplemental information.” Also Thompson [0047] secured electronic device may be a smart phone (mobile device)). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Kipust to determine that the mobile device of the combination in view of Thompson was moved after being set down using an accelerometer of the mobile device, as taught by Thompson, in order to potentially detect an unauthorized user attempting to interact with the device while the user is nearby but not paying attention.
Regarding claim 16, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimerand in further view of Blanco teaches: the mobile device of claim 14, wherein the mobile device monitors for the human interactions with the mobile device for a time period (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 security system armed mode turns on after a timer from when activity was last detected; Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device captures and records security violations (human intrusions to the device) in a log when security system is armed); time period: Kipust column 8 line 65 - column 9 line 32 access monitoring is terminated at the point in time where the authorized user disarms the security system; Thompson [0047] teaches device is a mobile device). Same motivation to combine as claim 14.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer in further view of Chavez et al. (US 11,972,760 B1), herein referred to as Chavez.
Regarding claim 9, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppnheimer teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein determining that a human interaction with the mobile device has occurred while the mobile device is in the idle state comprises:
detecting audio input to a mobile device (Kipust column 5 lines 46-59 captures audio of an intruder at the device to be monitored, while security violation is in progress while security system is armed, wherein security system is armed based on a detected absence of user activity (device is idle) (see column 7 lines 17-54); Thompson [0047] device to monitored is a smart phone (mobile device). Further Thompson [0041] also teaches: capture of audio by the microphone.)
Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer does not teach, however, Chavez teaches: wherein detecting audio input to a mobile device comprises:
Detecting a verbal interaction with a virtual assistant of the mobile device (Chavez column 5 lines 61-63 smart may detect fake voice commands to user device; column 7 line 8 – 16 interaction is done with a natural language interface (virtual assistant) smart device may be a (smart phone) mobile device).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kipust, Thompson and Oppenheimer to detect human interaction of the device as interaction with a virtual assistant, as taught by Chavez, as it is a known point of vulnerability in the art that provides remote access to smart device systems.
Claims 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer in further view of Logan (US 2007/0037610 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Kipust teaches: at least one computer-readable storage medium, excluding transitory signals and carrying instructions (Kipust column 3 lines 42-56 memory), which, when executed by at least one data processor (Kipust column 3 lines 42-56 microprocessor)of a device to be monitored (column 4 lines 37-55 controller controls operation of the security system and may be implemented as software routines of the PC i.e. in memory to executed by the processor; device to be monitored is PC with security system (see Fig.1)), cause the device to be monitored to:
establish that the device to be monitored has transitioned to an idle state… (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 absence of detected user activity in the vicinity of the device and a determination that this absence has ongoing for a period time, meaning device is not being used by the authorized user (is in an idle state));
in response to the idle state being established, monitor for human interactions with the device to be monitored over a time period (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 security system armed mode turns on after a timer from when activity was last detected; Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device captures and records security violations (human intrusions to the device) in a log when security system is armed); time period: Kipust column 8 line 65 - column 9 line 32 access monitoring is terminated at the point in time where the authorized user disarms the security system);
in response to a human interaction with the device to be monitored being detected within the time period, cause the device to be monitored to capture indicia of the human interaction and log the human interaction with the device to be monitored (Kipust column 5 lines 63-66 device being armed and a security violation occurring causing reporting module to capture information about the security violation; Kipust Column 10 lines 23-36 Video file may be captured and stored and video and the video file may captured in response to a security violation (see also column 11 lines 18-23 where video file supplements a log presented to the user); examiner’s note: a video file is a series of one or more images which further serve as indicia of human interaction; time period: Kipust column 8 line 65 - column 9 line 32 access monitoring is terminated at the point in time where the authorized user disarms the security system)); and
enable a user of the device to be monitored to review the indicia of the human interaction with the mobile device (column 5 lines 66-67 log is stored on PC and Kipust column 11 lines 18-23 report of log with video file (series of images/indicia of human interaction) is generated for display on display 104 of the PC (see fig. 1) which would be presented to an authorized user).
Kipust does not teach: wherein a device to be monitored is a mobile device;
However, Thompson teaches: wherein a device to be monitored is a mobile device (Thompson [0047] device to be monitored is a smart phone (mobile device));
monitor for human interactions with the device to be monitored ([0047] gives an example of the system recording the device being picked up by an unauthorized user)…;
in response to a human interaction with the device to be monitored being detected…, cause the device to be monitored to capture indicia of the human interaction and log the human interaction with the device to be monitored (“Thompson [0047] “If the internal device 208 senses motion of the secured electronic device 102, preferably after the secured electronic device 102 has been motionless for some predefined threshold duration, then the sensed motion would cause generation of the trigger to acquire the image information and supplemental information.”); and
enable a user of the device to be monitored to review the indicia of the human interaction with the mobile device (Thompson [0032] “Then, the retrieved images and/or supplemental information are communicated to the user's secured electronic device 102 and/or to another electronic device that is being used by the user. In practice, the image and/or supplemental information can then be retrieved from the data storage system 106 and be communicated to the user's smart phone 102a for presentation on their smart phone 102a at a later time and/or a later date.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kipust to be applied to a mobile device as a device to be monitored as taught by, Thompson, as they were of interest in terms of monitoring and logging of unauthorized used prior to the date of filing of the claimed invention.
Kipust in view of Thompson does not explicitly discloses monitor human interactions with the mobile device and capture indicia of the human interaction in a concealed manner. Oppenheimer in analogous art, however, monitor human interactions with the mobile device and capture indicia of the human interaction in a concealed manner. ([0021], [0341], [0396, [0404]], a portable item not only has a computational intelligence by which to self-determine that it may be lost, misplaced, misappropriated, wandering, or stolen, but where the item then self-initiates signaling or communications with a legitimate owner or user, without requiring any previous prompting from the legitimate owner or user, … BIRD (200) may employ additional sensor data (700), and/or alternative sensor data (700), to determine if an item (100) is on-person (138.OnP) or off-person (138.OffP).…if such an item has one or more cameras (210.C), the cameras may be used to search the environment for the face of a user. Other BIRD sensing means may be employed as well to make a determination if the item (100) is on-person (138.OnP) or off-person (138.OffP))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kipust and Thompson to include capturing image using a camera in a concealed manner. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to autonomous or passive monitoring that can be performed without user prompting thereby detecting misplaced or unauthorized device (para. [0021], [0404], Oppenheimer).
Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer does not teach, however, Logan teaches: wherein establish that the mobile device has transitioned to an idle state… is in response to a determination that there has been an absence of light that is detectable by a camera of the mobile device for a period of time (Logan [0036] mobile device is determined to be inactive where camera detects an extended period of low light during daylight hours as part of an indication that the device is not being used (is in an idle state) and can therefore be transitioned to an inactive mode).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kipust and Thompson and Oppenheimer to detect an absence of light for a period of time as means to determine that the device has transitioned to an idle state as taught by Logan, as a mobile device which has been stowed away in the dark or placed face down blocking the camera, especially for a period of time, can be considered as not being actively used.
Regarding claim 18, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer in view of Logan teaches:
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the indicia are representative of one or more images that are captured by a camera upon detection of the human interaction (Kipust Column 10 lines 23-36 Video file may be captured and stored and video and the video file may captured in response to a security violation (see also column 11 lines 18-23 where video file supplements a log presented to the user); examiner’s note: a video file is a series of one or more images which further serve as indicia of human interaction).
Regarding claim 19, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer in view of Logan teaches:
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein to establish that the mobile device has transitioned to the idle state further comprises causing the mobile device to: detect a transition from a period of activity to a prolonged period of inactivity (Kipust column 7 lines 17-54 absence of detected user activity in the vicinity of the device and a determination that this absence has ongoing for a period time that is set by a user, meaning device is not being used by the authorized user (is in an idle state)).
Regarding claim 21, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer in view of Logan teaches:
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein to establishing that the mobile device has transitioned to the idle state further comprises causing the mobile device to: detect a transition from a period of activity to a prolonged period of inactivity using an accelerometer (Thompson [0047] “the internal device 208 may be a type of motion sensing device, such as a micro-electro mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometer or the like. Here, motion of the secured electronic device 102 would be predefined to be a trigger event activity. If the internal device 208 senses motion of the secured electronic device 102, preferably after the secured electronic device 102 has been motionless for some predefined threshold duration, then the sensed motion would cause generation of the trigger to acquire the image information and supplemental information.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Kipust to determine that the mobile device of the combination in view of Thompson was moved after being set down using an accelerometer of the mobile device, as taught by Thompson, in order to potentially detect an unauthorized user attempting to interact with the device while the user is nearby but not paying attention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer in further view of Logan and further view of Blanco et al. (US 2014/0301196 A1), herein referred to as Blanco.
Regarding claim 20, Kipust in view of Thompson in view of Oppenheimer in view of Logan teaches: the computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, it does not teach however, Blanco suggests: wherein establishing that the mobile device has transitioned to the idle state further comprises: detecting inactivity of one or more user mobile apps on the mobile device (Blanco [0024] “Determining if a device is inactive (idle)--It could be assumed that if a device (or application) is inactive, the device/application is not actively being used by the user. For example, if a screen lock is present on a device, or if there is a lack of input on the device/application over a predetermined period of time, the device may be considered not actively being used.”; Blanco [0025] device may be a handheld (mobile device)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kipust, Thompson, Oppenheimer and logan, to determine an idle state of the device through inference when an application is not actively being used in addition to or as an alternative to a reading of an accelerometer as taught by Blanco, in order to have more ways to determine the device has been idle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Robinson et al (US 2019/0286806) – directed to performing device authentication based on the of proximity to another device, such as a key device. When a key device is not near a mobile communications device, an unlock screen is allowed to be presented on a display screen. Based on the mobile communications device receiving a first code to unlock the mobile communications device, the mobile communications device is unlocked in a first mode.
de la Huerga et al. (US 5960085) directed to a system for logging a system user onto and off of a computer terminal through means of a device worn by the system user which communicates with the computer terminal.
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 Shewaye Gelagay whose telephone number is (571)272-4219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 A.M. - 4 P.M..
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, Amy C. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-2238. 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.
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights