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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/02/2025 has been accepted and considered in this office action. Claims 1, 6, 10, 15, 18 and 20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that neither John nor Project MAC alone or in combination discloses "obtaining ... at least one image of a field-of-view (FOV) of a depth-sensing image capture device, “analyzing ... the at least one image using a facial recognition model with depth-sensing to determine that a first person is positioned within the FOV,” “determining ... permissions within the computer system for the first person based on a user profile for the first person, “providing ... access to the computing system in accordance with the determined permissions, “determining ... that the first person is away from the computer system, “retaining ... work of the first person for future access, “determining ... that a second person is positioned within the FOV,” “providing ... a display of open applications of the second person different from the retained work of the first person, “determining ... that the second person is away from the computer system and the first person is again positioned within the FOV," and "in response to determining that the first person has returned to the computer system, providing ... the retained work of the first person on the user interface of the computer system."
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues John does not save first user’s work.
John teaches scrambling readable content upon absence/unauthorized state and unscrambling upon authorized presence (Col 1, lines 57-67, Col 2, lines 1-16, Col 42, lines 24-32). Scrambling masks the display without destroying the underlying session/content; the system unscrambles the content when the authorized user returns (presence re-detected per Fig. 7 step 704/Fig. 9 step 904; See Col 37, lines 36-43). Scrambling content when user leaves and unscrambling content when user returns, this necessarily require preservation of underlying work/session state.
Applicant argues John does not switch to second user’s application. John teaches detecting multiple users, determining authorization per user and dynamic control of display content, for example, converting decrypted data to encrypted in response to the detection of second user (Col 42, lines 33 – Col 43, lines 33). Project MAC provides permissions defining what content each user can access, user-specific access, Project MAC (page 1-7). Extending John’s system such that when a different authenticated user is detected, the system scrambles and unscrambles the displayed content corresponding to that user’s permission/profile, one would arrive at displaying the applications and content of the second user when they are positioned in front of the system.
Applicant argues John does not disclose restoring first user’s work after second user leaves. However, John teaches detecting when the authenticated user is no longer viewing the screen or has moved/walked away from the screen. (John, Col 43, lines 25-29, moving/walking away; Col 24, lines 35-64, facing away based on iris/pupil/ocular signals). John’s panoramic/3D modeling further supports presence/absence determinations (John, Col 37, lines 59-65). John’s system continuously monitors the movement and/or location of users (John Col 43, lines 25-33). John determines whether the user is authorized or not to view readable screen in response to matching identifications and decrypting the encrypted data such that the data is readable to the user (John Col 38, lines 30-41) Which is exactly restoring retained work upon return.
Hence, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John (US 11227060 B1) in view of Project MAC (Programmers’ manual part introduction to Multics. (n.d.). https://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/TRs+TMs/Multics/TR-123.pdf, Pg 1-7, "control" section).
Regarding Claim 1, John teaches:
A method of user authentication for a computer system, the method comprising: obtaining, by one or more processors, at least one image of a field-of-view (FOV) of a depth-sensing image capture device, wherein the FOV is directed outward from a user interface of the computer system (John, Col 4, lines 33-37, Fig. 9 Step 904, 910, discloses the camera captures a Field of view outwards from the screen; Col 37, lines 59-65, further discloses using a camera that operates in a regular mode and a panoramic mode to create a 3D model of an image);
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the at least one image using a facial recognition model with depth-sensing to: (John, Col 27, lines 35-40, discloses while processing the images captured within the area, the processor of the user computing device 402 may employ face recognition technology for processing the normalized image; John, Col 24, lines 19-34, discloses that an eye tracking module analyzes the ocular sensor data of the user to determine eye rotation of the user from a change in the light reflection. John, Col 24, lines 35-64, discloses that a sensor detects the user is facing away from the screen based on iris/pupil data. Eye rotation and pupil position necessarily involve tracking movements in 3D space, and such analysis requires depth information (e.g., relative position of corneal reflection vs. pupil center). John, Col 25, lines 28-49, discloses that the system uses head tracking module to determine when a user moves their head or changes position relative to the screen. John, Col 28, lines 43-63, further determines whether a screen is in the viewable range of the user’s eye based on: i) An unobstructed line of sight between one or both of the unauthorized user’s eye and the screen. ii) the distance between the unauthorized user’s eyes and the screen. These requires 3D spatial measurements (e.g., line-of-sight vector and distance), which strongly suggests the system utilizes depth-sensing input for viewability analysis.);
determine that a first person is positioned within the FOV, (John, Col 37, lines 36-43, see Fig. 7 step 704 and Fig. 9 step 904, discloses detecting a user adjacent to a user computing device by capturing and processing real time facial image of the user adjacent to the computing device.);
and determine that the first person is a registered user of the computer system (John, Col 38, lines 30-32, discloses in step 708, a user computing device may determine whether a user is authorized to view readable data on a screen of the user computing device);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the first person is away from the computer system (John, Col 43, lines 25-29, discloses that the system detects user moving away or walking away from the system);
retaining, by the one or more processors, work of the first person for future access (John, Col 1, lines 57-67; Col 2, lines 1-16, discloses when a user is authorized, data is unscrambled. When an unauthorized access is detected or the user moves away, the data is scrambled. This implies that the underlying “work” or data is not destroyed, but merely its display state is changed for security. The system would logically need to maintain the state of the session or the data to revert to the readable form when the authorized user returns. This is an implicit functional requirement of a secure display system that reacts to the user’s presence/absence.);
determining, by the one or more processors, that a second person is positioned within the FOV (John, Col 42, lines 33 – Col 43, lines 33, discloses detecting second user, detecting a presence of another person);
providing, by the one or more processors, a display of open applications of the second person different from the retained work of the first person (John, Col 42, lines 33 – Col 43, lines 33, discloses detecting multiple users, determining authorization per user and dynamic control of display content, for example, converting decrypted data to encrypted in response to the detection of second user);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the second person is away from the computer system and the first person is again positioned within the FOV (John discloses detecting when the authenticated user is no longer viewing the screen or has moved/walked away from the screen. (John, Col 43, lines 25-29, moving/walking away; Col 24, lines 35-64, facing away based on iris/pupil/ocular signals). John’s panoramic/3D modeling further supports presence/absence determinations (John, Col 37, lines 59-65). John’s system continuously monitors the movement and/or location of users (John Col 43, lines 25-33).);
and in response to determining that the first person has returned to the computer system, providing, by the one or more processors, the retained work of the first person on the user interface of the computer system (John, Col 37, lines 36-43, see Fig. 7 step 704 and Fig. 9 step 904, discloses detecting a user adjacent to a user computing device by capturing and processing real time facial image of the user adjacent to the computing device; Col 42, lines 24-32, John discloses unscrambling the scrambled content and providing it to the user).
John does not explicitly teach; However, Project MAC teaches:
determining, by the one or more processors, permissions within the computer system for the first person based on a user profile for the first person, wherein the permissions define content that can be displayed via the user interface of the computer system; providing, by the one or more processors, access to the computing system in accordance with the determined permissions. (Project MAC, Page 1-7, discloses the ability to specify precisely to whom, and with what access mode (e.g., read, write, and execute permissions are separate and per-user) a piece of data or the entire contents of a subdirectory are available. Project MAC discloses mechanism for user access control and resource allocation based on user identity and permission. Project MAC discloses the access control mechanism that specify precisely to whom and with what permissions data, programs or directories are accessible. These permissions may be granted or revoked at any time, ensuring secure access management within the computing system.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John’s system to incorporate the teaching of Project MAC’s user permission control mechanism ensuring that different users have tailored access to computing resources based on predefined permissions. Doing so simply applies known access-control mechanisms (per-user read/write/execute access control lists) to John’s system would match a known identity with known permissions, leading to user specific, secure access control. One would be motivated to make this modification on John’s system to determine and enforce content access permission for a registered user within the computer system to increase efficiency and security through access control. (Project MAC, Page 1-7)
Regarding Claim 2, John and Project MAC teach the method of claim 1:
John teaches:
access to the computer system is limited, or the computer system is locked, if it is determined that either: i) a person is not detected within the FOV, or ii) the person positioned within the FOV is not a registered user of the computer system (John, Col 28, lines 63-67, discloses if an unauthorized user is detected within the viewable range of the screen, the system may lock the screen, scramble the screen, or restrict access.)
Regarding Claim 3, John and Project MAC teach the method of claim 2:
John teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein limiting access to, or locking, the computer system comprises obscuring data on the user interface (John, Col 28, lines 63-67, discloses if an unauthorized user is detected within the viewable range of the screen, the system may lock the screen, scramble the screen, or restrict access.)
Regarding Claim 6, John and Project MAC teach the method of claim 1:
John teaches:
determining, by the one or more processors, during at least one repetition of the method, using the facial recognition model with depth-sensing, that the first person is no longer positioned within the FOV or is no longer facing the user interface; and limiting access to, or locking, the computer system (John, Col 1, lines 65-67, Col 2 lines 1-2, discloses when it is determined that the authenticated user is no longer looking at or facing at the screen of the computing device, the screen becomes scrambled or locked.)
Regarding Claim 7, John and Project MAC teach the method of claim 1:
John teaches:
the depth-sensing image capture device is one of a stereoscopic camera, a time-of-flight camera, or a structured light camera (John, Col 9, lines 60-66, discloses the user device 102 may further include embedded or associated cameras, sensors 112 (such as proximity sensors, image sensors, motion sensors, thermal sensors, and ambient light sensors).)
Regarding Claim 8, John and Project MAC teach the method of claim 1:
John teaches:
wherein the at least one image is obtained from a video feed provided by the depth-sensing image capture device (John, Col 41, lines 55-60, discloses that the images may be individual still photographs or sequences of images constituting videos or movies of objects and users within the area. The images captured from the camera are fed to a processor of a user computing device or a system server which segregates the images (based on content within it) and normalize the images.)
Regarding Claim 9, John and Project MAC teach the method of claim 1:
John teaches:
the method is periodically repeated at an interval of five seconds or less (John, Col 29, lines 3-10, discloses continuous and repeated monitoring of a user's presence and movement implying periodic image capture at short intervals.)
Regarding Claim 10, John teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: obtaining at least one image of a field-of-view (FOV) of a depth-sensing image capture device, wherein the FOV is directed outward from a user interface of the computer system (John, Col 4, lines 33-37, Fig. 9 Step 904, 910, discloses the camera captures a Field of view outwards from the screen; Col 37, lines 59-65, further discloses using a camera that operates in a regular mode and a panoramic mode to create a 3D model of an image);
analyzing the at least one image using a facial recognition model with depth-sensing to: (John, Col 27, lines 35-40, discloses while processing the images captured within the area, the processor of the user computing device 402 may employ face recognition technology for processing the normalized image. John, Col 24, lines 19-34, discloses that an eye tracking module analyzes the ocular sensor data of the user to determine eye rotation of the user from a change in the light reflection. John, Col 24, lines 35-64, discloses that a sensor detects the user is facing away from the screen based on iris/pupil data. Eye rotation and pupil position necessarily involve tracking movements in 3D space, and such analysis requires depth information (e.g., relative position of corneal reflection vs. pupil center). John, Col 25, lines 28-49, discloses that the system uses head tracking module to determine when a user moves their head or changes position relative to the screen. John, Col 28, lines 43-63, further determines whether a screen is in the viewable range of the user’s eye based on: i) An unobstructed line of sight between one or both of the unauthorized user’s eye and the screen. ii) the distance between the unauthorized user’s eyes and the screen. These requires 3D spatial measurements (e.g., line-of-sight vector and distance), which strongly suggests the system utilizes depth-sensing input for viewability analysis.);
determine that a first person is positioned within the FOV, (John, Col 37, lines 36-43, see Fig. 7 step 704 and Fig. 9 step 904, discloses detecting a user adjacent to a user computing device by capturing and processing real time facial image of the user adjacent to the computing device.);
and determine that the first person is a registered user of the computing device (John, Col 38, lines 30-32, discloses in step 708, a user computing device may determine whether a user is authorized to view readable data on a screen of the user computing device);
determining that the first person is away from the computer system (John, Col 43, lines 25-29, discloses that the system detects user moving away or walking away from the system);
retaining work of the first person for future access (John, Col 1, lines 57-67; Col 2, lines 1-16, discloses when a user is authorized, data is unscrambled. When an unauthorized access is detected or the user moves away, the data is scrambled. This implies that the underlying “work” or data is not destroyed, but merely its display state is changed for security. The system would logically need to maintain the state of the session or the data to revert to the readable form when the authorized user returns. This is an implicit functional requirement of a secure display system that reacts to the user’s presence/absence.);
determining, by the one or more processors, that a second person is positioned within the FOV (John, Col 42, lines 33 – Col 43, lines 33, discloses detecting second user, detecting a presence of another person);
providing, by the one or more processors, a display of open applications of the second person different from the retained work of the first person (John, Col 42, lines 33 – Col 43, lines 33, discloses detecting multiple users, determining authorization per user and dynamic control of display content, for example, converting decrypted data to encrypted in response to the detection of second user);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the second person is away from the computer system and the first person is again positioned within the FOV (John discloses detecting when the authenticated user is no longer viewing the screen or has moved/walked away from the screen. (John, Col 43, lines 25-29, moving/walking away; Col 24, lines 35-64, facing away based on iris/pupil/ocular signals). John’s panoramic/3D modeling further supports presence/absence determinations (John, Col 37, lines 59-65). John’s system continuously monitors the movement and/or location of users (John Col 43, lines 25-33).);
and in response to determining that the first person has returned to the computer system, providing the retained work of the first person on the user interface of the computer system (John, Col 37, lines 36-43, see Fig. 7 step 704 and Fig. 9 step 904, discloses detecting a user adjacent to a user computing device by capturing and processing real time facial image of the user adjacent to the computing device; Col 42, lines 24-32, John discloses unscrambling the scrambled content and providing it to the user).
John does not explicitly teach; However, Project MAC teaches:
determining permissions within the computing device for the person based on a user profile for the person, wherein the permissions define content that can be displayed via the user interface of the computing device; providing access to the computing device in accordance with the determined permissions. (Project MAC, Page 1-7, discloses the ability to specify precisely to whom, and with what access mode (e.g., read, write, and execute permissions are separate and per-user) a piece of data or the entire contents of a subdirectory are available. Project MAC discloses mechanism for user access control and resource allocation based on user identity and permission. Project MAC discloses the access control mechanism that specify precisely to whom and with what permissions data, programs or directories are accessible. These permissions may be granted or revoked at any time, ensuring secure access management within the computing system.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John’s system to incorporate the teaching of Project MAC’s user permission control mechanism ensuring that different users have tailored access to computing resources based on predefined permissions. Doing so simply applies known access-control mechanisms (per-user read/write/execute access control lists) to John’s system would match a known identity with known permissions, leading to user specific, secure access control. One would be motivated to make this modification on John’s system to determine and enforce content access permission for a registered user within the computer system to increase efficiency and security through access control. (Project MAC, Page 1-7)
Regarding Claim 18, John teaches:
A computer system comprising one or more processors; and one or more memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: obtaining at least one image of a field-of-view (FOV) of a depth-sensing image capture device, wherein the FOV is directed outward from a user interface of the computer system (John, Col 4, lines 33-37, Fig. 9 Step 904, 910, discloses the camera captures a Field of view outwards from the screen; Col 37, lines 59-65, further discloses using a camera that operates in a regular mode and a panoramic mode to create a 3D model of an image);
analyzing the at least one image using a facial recognition model with depth-sensing to: (John, Col 27, lines 35-40, discloses while processing the images captured within the area, the processor of the user computing device 402 may employ face recognition technology for processing the normalized image. John, Col 24, lines 19-34, discloses that an eye tracking module analyzes the ocular sensor data of the user to determine eye rotation of the user from a change in the light reflection. John, Col 24, lines 35-64, discloses that a sensor detects the user is facing away from the screen based on iris/pupil data. Eye rotation and pupil position necessarily involve tracking movements in 3D space, and such analysis requires depth information (e.g., relative position of corneal reflection vs. pupil center). John, Col 25, lines 28-49, discloses that the system uses head tracking module to determine when a user moves their head or changes position relative to the screen. John, Col 28, lines 43-63, further determines whether a screen is in the viewable range of the user’s eye based on: i) An unobstructed line of sight between one or both of the unauthorized user’s eye and the screen. ii) the distance between the unauthorized user’s eyes and the screen. These requires 3D spatial measurements (e.g., line-of-sight vector and distance), which strongly suggests the system utilizes depth-sensing input for viewability analysis.);
determine that a first person is positioned within the FOV, (John, Col 37, lines 36-43, see Fig. 7 step 704 and Fig. 9 step 904, discloses detecting a user adjacent to a user computing device by capturing and processing real time facial image of the user adjacent to the computing device.);
and determine whether the first person is a registered user of the computer system (John, Col 38, lines 30-32, discloses in step 708, a user computing device may determine whether a user is authorized to view readable data on a screen of the user computing device);
determining that the first person is away from the computer system (John, Col 43, lines 25-29, discloses that the system detects user moving away or walking away from the system);
retaining work of the first person for future access (John, Col 1, lines 57-67; Col 2, lines 1-16, discloses when a user is authorized, data is unscrambled. When an unauthorized access is detected or the user moves away, the data is scrambled. This implies that the underlying “work” or data is not destroyed, but merely its display state is changed for security. The system would logically need to maintain the state of the session or the data to revert to the readable form when the authorized user returns. This is an implicit functional requirement of a secure display system that reacts to the user’s presence/absence.);
determining, by the one or more processors, that a second person is positioned within the FOV (John, Col 42, lines 33 – Col 43, lines 33, discloses detecting second user, detecting a presence of another person);
providing, by the one or more processors, a display of open applications of the second person different from the retained work of the first person (John, Col 42, lines 33 – Col 43, lines 33, discloses detecting multiple users, determining authorization per user and dynamic control of display content, for example, converting decrypted data to encrypted in response to the detection of second user);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the second person is away from the computer system and the first person is again positioned within the FOV (John discloses detecting when the authenticated user is no longer viewing the screen or has moved/walked away from the screen. (John, Col 43, lines 25-29, moving/walking away; Col 24, lines 35-64, facing away based on iris/pupil/ocular signals). John’s panoramic/3D modeling further supports presence/absence determinations (John, Col 37, lines 59-65). John’s system continuously monitors the movement and/or location of users (John Col 43, lines 25-33).);
and in response to determining that the person has returned to the computer system, providing the retained work of the person on the user interface of the computer system (John, Col 37, lines 36-43, see Fig. 7 step 704 and Fig. 9 step 904, discloses detecting a user adjacent to a user computing device by capturing and processing real time facial image of the user adjacent to the computing device; Col 42, lines 24-32, John discloses unscrambling the scrambled content and providing it to the user).
John does not explicitly teach; However, Project MAC teaches:
determining permissions within the computer system for the first person based on a user profile for the first person, wherein the permissions define content that can be displayed via the user interface; providing access to the computing system in accordance with the determined permissions. (Project MAC, Page 1-7, discloses the ability to specify precisely to whom, and with what access mode (e.g., read, write, and execute permissions are separate and per-user) a piece of data or the entire contents of a subdirectory are available. Project MAC discloses mechanism for user access control and resource allocation based on user identity and permission. Project MAC discloses the access control mechanism that specify precisely to whom and with what permissions data, programs or directories are accessible. These permissions may be granted or revoked at any time, ensuring secure access management within the computing system.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John’s system to incorporate the teaching of Project MAC’s user permission control mechanism ensuring that different users have tailored access to computing resources based on predefined permissions. Doing so simply applies known access-control mechanisms (per-user read/write/execute access control lists) to John’s system would match a known identity with known permissions, leading to user specific, secure access control. One would be motivated to make this modification on John’s system to determine and enforce content access permission for a registered user within the computer system to increase efficiency and security through access control. (Project MAC, Page 1-7)
Regarding Claim 11, John and Project MAC teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10,
John teaches:
access to the computing device is limited, or the computing device is locked, if it is determined that either: i) a person is not detected within the FOV, or ii) the person positioned within the FOV is not a registered user of the computer system (John, Col 28, lines 63-67, discloses if an unauthorized user is detected within the viewable range of the screen, the system may lock the screen, scramble the screen, or restrict access.)
Regarding Claim 19, John and Project MAC teach the computer system of claim 18,
John teaches:
access to the computer system is limited, or the computer system is locked, if it is determined that either: i) a person is not detected within the FOV, or ii) the person positioned within the FOV is not a registered user of the computer system (John, Col 28, lines 63-67, discloses if an unauthorized user is detected within the viewable range of the screen, the system may lock the screen, scramble the screen, or restrict access.)
Regarding Claim 12, John and Project MAC teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11,
John teaches:
limiting access to, or locking, the computing device comprises obscuring data on the user interface (John, Col 28, lines 63-67, discloses if an unauthorized user is detected within the viewable range of the screen, the system may lock the screen, scramble the screen, or restrict access.)
Regarding Claim 16, John and Project MAC teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10:
John teaches:
the depth-sensing image capture device is one of a stereoscopic camera, a time-of-flight camera, or a structured light camera (John, Col 9, lines 60-66, discloses the user device 102 may further include embedded or associated cameras, sensors 112 (such as proximity sensors, image sensors, motion sensors, thermal sensors, and ambient light sensors).)
Regarding Claim 17, John and Project MAC teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10:
John teaches:
wherein the at least one image is obtained from a video feed provided by the depth-sensing image capture device (John, Col 41, lines 55-60, discloses that the images may be individual still photographs or sequences of images constituting videos or movies of objects and users within the area. The images captured from the camera are fed to a processor of a user computing device or a system server which segregates the images (based on content within it) and normalize the images.)
Regarding Claim 15, John and Project MAC teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 10:
John teaches:
determining, during at least one repetition of the method, using the facial recognition model with depth-sensing, that the person is no longer positioned within the FOV or is no longer facing the user interface; and limiting access to, or locking, the computer device (John, Col 1, lines 65-67, Col 2 lines 1-2, discloses when it is determined that the authenticated user is no longer looking at or facing at the screen of the computing device, the screen becomes scrambled or locked.)
Regarding Claim 20, John and Project MAC teach the computer system of claim 18:
John teaches:
determining, during at least one repetition of the method, using the facial recognition model with depth-sensing, that the first person is no longer positioned within the FOV or is no longer facing the user interface; and limiting or preventing access to the computer system (John, Col 1, lines 65-67, Col 2 lines 1-2, discloses when it is determined that the authenticated user is no longer looking at or facing at the screen of the computing device, the screen becomes scrambled or locked.)
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John (US 11227060 B1) in view of Project MAC (Programmers’ manual part introduction to Multics. (n.d.). https://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/TRs+TMs/Multics/TR-123.pdf, Pg 1-7, "control" section) in view of Douglas (US 20220051038 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, John and Project MAC teach the method of claim 2:
John and Project MAC do not teach, However Douglas teaches:
generating an alert if it is determined that the person positioned within the FOV is not a registered user of the computer system, wherein the alert is displayed via the user interface and/or transmitted to a remote device (Douglas, Page 2, para 20, the driver behavior system 115 may determine that the one or more faces included in the video data do not correspond to the driver of the vehicle 110 (e.g., because an unauthorized person is driving the vehicle 110) and may generate and/or provide a notification (e.g., to a client device associated with the driver behavior system 115) indicating that the vehicle 110 is not being operated by the driver.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John/Project MAC’s system to incorporate the teaching of Douglas’s technique of generating an alert or notification and sending it to a remote device if the user is not registered. One would be motivated to make this modification on John/Project MAC’s system to promote security and user compliance with the set rules and policies. (Douglas, Page 1)
Regarding Claim 13, John and Project MAC teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11:
John and Project MAC do not teach, However Douglas teaches:
generating an alert if it is determined that the person positioned within the FOV is not a registered user of the computing device, wherein the alert is displayed via the user interface and/or transmitted to a remote device (Douglas, Page 2, para 20, the driver behavior system 115 may determine that the one or more faces included in the video data do not correspond to the driver of the vehicle 110 (e.g., because an unauthorized person is driving the vehicle 110) and may generate and/or provide a notification (e.g., to a client device associated with the driver behavior system 115) indicating that the vehicle 110 is not being operated by the driver.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John/Project MAC’s system to incorporate the teaching of Douglas’s technique of generating an alert or notification and sending it to a remote device if the user is not registered. One would be motivated to make this modification on John/Project MAC’s system to promote security and user compliance with the set rules and policies. (Douglas, Page 1)
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John (US 11227060 B1) in view of Project MAC (Programmers’ manual part introduction to Multics. (n.d.). https://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/TRs+TMs/Multics/TR-123.pdf, Pg 1-7, "control" section) in view of Ross (US 20130219417 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, John and Project MAC teach the method of claim 1:
John teaches:
Detecting, by the one or more processors during at least one repetition of the method (John, Col 1, lines 62-67, discloses continuous and periodic monitoring mechanism – whenever the system detects a change in user presence (e.g., user looks away or another user appears), it reacts accordingly);
using the facial recognition model with depth-sensing (John, Col 37, lines 59-65, further discloses using a camera that operates in a regular mode and a panoramic mode to create a 3D model of an image);
that user is positioned within the FOV of the depth-sensing image capture device and is facing the user interface (John, Col 4, lines 50-52, discloses detecting, by the user computing device, via the one or more sensors, a second user in line of sight of the screen; Col 37, lines 59-65, John discloses using a camera that operates in a regular mode and a panoramic mode to create a 3D mode of an image.)
determining, by the one or more processors, that the user is a registered user of the computer system (John, Col 38, lines 30-32, discloses in step 708, a user computing device may determine whether a user is authorized to view readable data on a screen of the user computing device);
John does not teach; However, Project MAC teaches:
Determining, the one or more processors permissions within the computer system for the at least one additional person; and modifying, by the one or more processors, access to the computing system in accordance with the determined permissions of the at least one additional person (Project MAC, Page 1-7, discloses the ability to specify precisely to whom, and with what access mode (e.g., read, write, and execute permissions are separate and per-user) a piece of data or the entire contents of a subdirectory are available. Project MAC discloses mechanism for user access control and resource allocation based on user identity and permission. Project MAC discloses the access control mechanism that specify precisely to whom and with what permissions data, programs or directories are accessible. These permissions may be granted or revoked at any time, ensuring secure access management within the computing system.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John’s system to incorporate the teaching of Project MAC’s user permission control mechanism ensuring that different users have tailored access to computing resources based on predefined permissions. One would be motivated to make this modification on John’s system to determine and enforce content access permission for a registered user within the computer system to increase efficiency and security through access control. (Project MAC, Page 1-7)
Project MAC does not teach, However Ross teaches:
wherein the user is at least one additional person (Ross, Page 3, para 41, discloses the sensor 202 can be configured to determine the presence of one or more users within a field of view of the sensor 202)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John/Project MAC’s system to incorporate the teaching of Ross to include at least one additional person to personalize the user experience automatically. One would be motivated to make such modification on John/Project MAC’s system increase efficiency and automatically personalizing user experience. (Ross, Page 1, 2)
Regarding Claim 14, John and Project MAC teach the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 10:
John teaches:
detecting, during at least one repetition of the method (John, Col 1, lines 62-67, discloses continuous and periodic monitoring mechanism – whenever the system detects a change in user presence (e.g., user looks away or another user appears), it reacts accordingly);,
using the facial recognition model with depth-sensing (John, Col 37, lines 59-65, further discloses using a camera that operates in a regular mode and a panoramic mode to create a 3D model of an image);
that user is positioned within the FOV of the depth- sensing image capture device and is facing the user interface (John, Col 4, lines 50-52, discloses detecting, by the user computing device, via the one or more sensors, a second user in line of sight of the screen; Col 37, lines 59-65, John discloses using a camera that operates in a regular mode and a panoramic mode to create a 3D mode of an image.)
determining that the user is a registered user of the computing device (John, Col 38, lines 30-32, discloses in step 708, a user computing device may determine whether a user is authorized to view readable data on a screen of the user computing device);
John does not teach; However, Project MAC teaches:
determining permissions within the computing device for the at least one additional person; and modifying access to the computing device in accordance with the determined permissions of the at least one additional person (Project MAC, Page 1-7, discloses the ability to specify precisely to whom, and with what access mode (e.g., read, write, and execute permissions are separate and per-user) a piece of data or the entire contents of a subdirectory are available. Project MAC discloses mechanism for user access control and resource allocation based on user identity and permission. Project MAC discloses the access control mechanism that specify precisely to whom and with what permissions data, programs or directories are accessible. These permissions may be granted or revoked at any time, ensuring secure access management within the computing system.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John’s system to incorporate the teaching of Project MAC’s user permission control mechanism ensuring that different users have tailored access to computing resources based on predefined permissions. One would be motivated to make this modification on John’s system to determine and enforce content access permission for a registered user within the computer system to increase efficiency and security through access control. (Project MAC, Page 1-7)
Project MAC does not teach, However Ross teaches:
wherein the user is at least one additional person (Ross, Page 3, para 41, discloses the sensor 202 can be configured to determine the presence of one or more users within a field of view of the sensor 202)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified John/Project MAC’s system to incorporate the teaching of Ross to include at least one additional person to personalize the user experience automatically. One would be motivated to make such modification on John/Project MAC’s system increase efficiency and automatically personalizing user experience. (Ross, Page 1, 2)
Citation
References about 3d mapping or modeling about faces for biometric authentication.
Tussy, [US 20230073410 A1]
Hassani, [US 20220374643 A1]
Rowe, [US 20210110185 A1]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMIT KHADKA whose telephone number is (703)756-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Jeffrey L. Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/AMIT KHADKA/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights