DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 13 May 2026:
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 16, 21, 23 and 26 are amended.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 13 May 2026:
a. Applicant’s arguments that Garel and Halmstad, whether taken alone or as a combination, fail to disclose, teach, suggest, inter alia: determine, based at least in part on metadata comprising identifying information associated with the mobile device, a sequence of navigational input commands for the mobile device configured to elevate the access permissions of the mobile device to an elevated level has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. After consideration, the Examiner is maintaining the current rejection as seen below due to the primary reference, Garel, teaching the limitation of determining, a sequence of navigational input commands for the mobile device configured to elevate the access permissions of the mobile device to an elevated level, and the secondary reference, Halmstad, being introduced to teach how input commands can be determined using metadata. Applicant’s attention is directed to Garel, Paragraph [0085], see “In step 530, target unit interaction software transmits HID (Human Interface Commands) commands to interact with the target unit 104 and to control the target unit 104 to generate and/or navigate to a desired image screen…one or more HID commands are transmitted from a USB interface included in one or more user devices 102 to one or more target units 104 which, in turn, enable the target units to be controlled to automatically perform certain functions without a human user sending commands to the target unit…”, where “HID commands” is being read as determining a sequence of navigational input commands for the mobile device (target units) and Garel, Paragraph [0086], see “…target unit interaction software transmits one or more HID commands to control the target unit 104 to generate and/or navigate to an image screen, such as, for example, a “Settings” image screen or screen that provides similar functionality and/or options, that provides an option and/or functionality to reset the target unit 104 to another configuration”, which is being read as transmitting a sequence of navigational input commands (HID commands) configured to elevate the access permissions of the mobile device to an elevated level (generate and/or navigate to an image screen, such as, for example, a “Settings” image screen. Applicant’s attention is further directed to Halmstad, Claim 23, see “…further comprising receiving, at the manager mobile device, user input that defines a sequence of commands that are to be automatically executed as a macro in response to a particular event”, where “sequence of commands that are to be automatically executed” is analogous to determining a sequence of (navigational) input commands for the mobile device) (Halmstad, Paragraph [0037], see “…the push notifications 131, 132 may include or identify the command to the performed by the managed mobile device 140, 150…”, Halmstad, Paragraph [0040], see “…the MDM server 120 may store data identifying a start time and an end time of a class period, and may automatically initiate the clearing of focus restrictions at the end of the class period…”, where “data identifying a start time and an end time” is analogous to comprising metadata associated with the mobile device and where “automatically initiate the clearing of focus restrictions” is analogous to a sequence of (navigational) input commands for the mobile device based on the metadata and Halmstad, Paragraph [0063], see “…receiving, at a MDM server from a manager mobile device, data identifying a managed mobile device of a plurality of managed mobile devices and a command selected at the manager mobile device for execution at the managed mobile device…”, where “data identifying a managed mobile device of a plurality of managed mobile devices” is analogous to comprising additional metadata which identifies information associated with the mobile device in order to determine a sequence of commands for the mobile device.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-12, 18-22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garel et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2023/0028513), hereinafter Garel, in view of Halmstad et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2015/0304484), hereinafter Halmstad.
Regarding claim 1, Garel teaches An apparatus for elevating access permissions of a mobile device (Garel, Paragraph [0035], see “User device 102 is an example of a device that interfaces with one or more target unit to control, configure, manufacture, test, diagnose, and/or reset the one or more target units by transmitting human interface device (HID) commands to the one or more target units without human operator interaction”, where “target units” is being read as comprising a mobile device), the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer-coded instructions thereon, the computer-coded instructions, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to (Garel, Claim 19):
transmit, to the mobile device, signals configured to simulate a connection of one or more peripheral input devices to the mobile device (Garel, Paragraph [0037], see “…user devices 102 is a processing device…that may be configured to simulate human interaction with one or more target units 104…electronically mimicking an operator using a human interface device 218”, where “human interface device 218” is being read as one or more peripheral input devices, and where “target units 104” is being read as a mobile device) (Garel, Paragraph [0038], see “…one or more target units 104 may include…smartphones…”);
determine, (Garel, Paragraph [0085], see “In step 530, target unit interaction software transmits HID (Human Interface Commands) commands to interact with the target unit 104 and to control the target unit 104 to generate and/or navigate to a desired image screen…one or more HID commands are transmitted from a USB interface included in one or more user devices 102 to one or more target units 104 which, in turn, enable the target units to be controlled to automatically perform certain functions without a human user sending commands to the target unit…”, where “HID commands” is being read as determining a sequence of navigational input commands for the mobile device (target units)) (Garel, Paragraph [0086], see “…target unit interaction software transmits one or more HID commands to control the target unit 104 to generate and/or navigate to an image screen, such as, for example, a “Settings” image screen or screen that provides similar functionality and/or options, that provides an option and/or functionality to reset the target unit 104 to another configuration”, which is being read as transmitting a sequence of navigational input commands (HID commands) configured to elevate the access permissions of the mobile device to an elevated level (generate and/or navigate to an image screen, such as, for example, a “Settings” image screen));
transmit, to the mobile device, signals configured to simulate the sequence of navigational input commands from the simulated peripheral input devices (Garel, Paragraph [0085], see “In step 530, target unit interaction software transmits HID (Human Interface Commands) commands to interact with the target unit 104 and to control the target unit 104 to generate and/or navigate to a desired image screen…one or more HID commands are transmitted from a USB interface included in one or more user devices 102 to one or more target units 104 which, in turn, enable the target units to be controlled to automatically perform certain functions without a human user sending commands to the target unit…”, where “HID commands” is being read as comprising a sequence of navigational input commands, wherein signals are transmitted to the target unit (mobile device) to simulate the sequence of HID commands); and
cause execution of one or more computer executable instructions on the mobile device, wherein the one or more computer executable instructions require the elevated level of the access permissions (Garel, Paragraph [0092], see “…target unit interaction software uses HID commands to position a pointer…to select an option that changes one or more configurations of one or more target units 104…”) (Garel, Paragraph [0097], see “…target unit interaction software automatically executes the option selected in step 550 by transmitting one or more HID commands to the one or more perspective target units…target unit interaction software executes the “Reset” option for one or more target units 104”, where instructions are executed on the mobile device, where the instructions (reset) require the elevated level of the access permissions (through the HID commands)).
Garel does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Halmstad: determine, based at least in part on metadata comprising identifying information associated with the mobile device, a sequence of navigational input commands for the mobile device configured to elevate the access permissions of the mobile device to an elevated level (Halmstad, Claim 23, see “…further comprising receiving, at the manager mobile device, user input that defines a sequence of commands that are to be automatically executed as a macro in response to a particular event”, where “sequence of commands that are to be automatically executed” is analogous to determining a sequence of (navigational) input commands for the mobile device) (Halmstad, Paragraph [0037], see “…the push notifications 131, 132 may include or identify the command to the performed by the managed mobile device 140, 150…”) (Halmstad, Paragraph [0040], see “…the MDM server 120 may store data identifying a start time and an end time of a class period, and may automatically initiate the clearing of focus restrictions at the end of the class period…”, where “data identifying a start time and an end time” is analogous to comprising metadata associated with the mobile device and where “automatically initiate the clearing of focus restrictions” is analogous to a sequence of (navigational) input commands for the mobile device based on the metadata) (Halmstad, Paragraph [0063], see “…receiving, at a MDM server from a manager mobile device, data identifying a managed mobile device of a plurality of managed mobile devices and a command selected at the manager mobile device for execution at the managed mobile device…”, where “data identifying a managed mobile device of a plurality of managed mobile devices” is analogous to comprising additional metadata which identifies information associated with the mobile device in order to determine a sequence of commands for the mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Garel, by implementing techniques of determining a sequence of (navigational) input commands for the mobile device based on metadata associated with the mobile device, wherein the metadata comprises identifying information associated with the mobile device, disclosed of Halmstad.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for access permission control in a mobile device, comprising of determining a sequence of (navigational) input commands for the mobile device based on metadata associated with the mobile device, wherein the metadata comprises identifying information associated with the mobile device. This allows for better efficiency and optimization by determining specific input commands for the mobile device based on its metadata. Commands can be automatically customized based on device-specific information, ensuring optimal performance and compatibility. Halmstad is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of determining a sequence of navigational input commands for the mobile device based on metadata associated with the mobile device, wherein the metadata comprises identifying information associated with the mobile device (Halmstad, Claim 23).
Regarding claim 2, Garel as modified by Halmstad teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more cameras (Garel, FIG. 4A, “see 410”, which shows a camera within the apparatus), wherein the computer-coded instructions further cause the apparatus to:
receive image data from the one or more cameras (Garel, FIG. 5A, see “520”, which utilizes one or more cameras for video analysis) (Garel, Paragraph [0084], see “…if an image output may not be obtained from the target unit 104, a digital camera input device connected to a user device 102 may be positioned over the target unit 104 such that video capture may be performed…”);
determine, based on the image data, one or more interface attributes associated with a respective configuration of an electronic interface of the mobile device (Garel, Paragraph [0082], see “…if the target unit is an iPhone, target unit interaction software may analyze one or more image screens to identify one or more key words “App Store”, “Settings”, “Contacts”, “Calendar” or any suitable word in the image screen or at a certain location in the image screen”); and
determine, based on the one or more interface attributes, a navigational state, wherein the navigational state is a current location in a mobile device menu hierarchy (Garel, FIG. 5A, see “530”, “540”, which determines a navigational state, wherein the navigational state is a current location in a mobile device menu hierarchy (transmits HID commands to navigate to target image screen to match the state of the mobile device)).
Regarding claim 8, Geral as modified by Halmstad teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the computer-coded instructions further cause the apparatus to:
prior to causing execution of the one or more computer executable instructions on the mobile device, determine whether the access permissions of the mobile device have been elevated (Geral, Paragraph [0089], see “…target unit interaction software uses video analysis to confirm that the one or more target units has provided an image screen wherein that provides an option and/or functionality to reset the respective target unit 104”, which is being read as prior to causing execution of the instructions (reset) on the mobile device, determine whether the access permissions of the mobile device have been elevated (confirming that the target units has provided the appropriate image screen)).
Regarding claim 9, Geral as modified by Halmstad teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer executable instructions executed on the mobile device comprise computer-coded instructions configured to execute at least one debugging operation of one or more debugging operations (Geral, Paragraph [0079], see “…a debug mode option may need to be enabled in, for example, an accessibility panel to allow the user device 102 to operably interact with the target unit 104”), wherein the one or more debugging operations comprise instructions to:
receive device data associated with the mobile device (Geral, FIG. 6A, see “610”, which receives device data associated with the mobile device in order to run tests for diagnostics);
diagnose one or more faults with the mobile device (Geral, Paragraph [0101], see “…for a target unit interaction diagnostics program 600…the target unit interaction diagnostics program 600 may operate to diagnose the health and/or state of one or more hardware components included in the one or more target units…”);
repair the one or more faults with the mobile device (Geral, Paragraph [0127], see “…the emulated keystrokes control the respective one or more target console units to execute the “Update” option to change, repair, reset and/or upgrade one or more configurations of one or more of the respective one or more target console units”, where “target console units” is being read as comprising the mobile device); and
reset the mobile device to a default state (Geral, Paragraph [0127], see “…the emulated keystrokes control the respective one or more target console units to execute the “Update” option to change, repair, reset and/or upgrade one or more configurations of one or more of the respective one or more target console units”, where “reset” is being read as resetting the mobile device to a default state).
Regarding claim 10, Geral as modified by Halmstad teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the signals configured to simulate a sequence of navigational input commands on the mobile device comprise a plurality of simulated keystrokes (Geral, Paragraph [0093], see “…the HID commands transmitted to the exemplary target console unit 104 emulate the following keyboard keystrokes…”), and wherein the signals are transmitted to the mobile device via a cable connected to the mobile device (Geral, Paragraph [0056], see “…the communicable connection between the user device 102 and the iPhone may be a physical connection such as, for example, a USB-C to Lightning cable or some other suitable physical connection”).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 and 22, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claims 18 and 28, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 8.
Regarding claims 19 and 29, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 9.
Regarding claims 20 and 30, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 10.
Claims 3-7, 13-17 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geral, in view of Halmstad, in further view of Kitchen et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2022/0381564), hereinafter Kitchen.
Regarding claim 3, Geral as modified by Halmstad teaches The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the computer-coded instructions further cause the apparatus to:
determine, based on the one or more interface attributes, the sequence of navigational input commands (Geral, Paragraph [0088], see “…once the desired “Search” image screen has been provided by the smartphone target unit, HID commands will automatically be transmitted to the smartphone target unit to input word “settings—Open” into the search box…which in turn will control the target smartphone unit to provide the “Settings” image screen”, which determines a sequence of navigational input commands (HID commands) to be transmitted to the target unit to be executed),
transmit, based on the navigational state, a signal to execute a simulated navigational input command from the sequence of navigational input commands (Geral, Paragraph [0088], see “…once the desired “Search” image screen has been provided by the smartphone target unit, HID commands will automatically be transmitted to the smartphone target unit to input word “settings—Open” into the search box…which in turn will control the target smartphone unit to provide the “Settings” image screen”, which is being read as transmitting a signal to execute a simulated navigational input command (to input word “settings—Open” into the search box) from the sequence of commands).
Geral as modified by Halmstad do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Kitchen: wherein the one or more interface attributes comprises one or more visual representations corresponding to the metadata (Kitchen, Paragraph [0205], see “…The data collection application may then display the set of sensor measurements, the one or more events, and/or the metadata through a user interface on a display of the mobile device…”, which is analogous to providing a visual representation corresponding to the metadata).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Garel, and techniques disclosed of Halmstad, by implementing techniques of providing one or more visual representations corresponding to the metadata, disclosed of Kitchen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for access permission control in a mobile device, comprising of providing one or more visual representations corresponding to the metadata. This allows for a more user-friendly environment by providing visual representations of metadata, which helps direct the user (or mobile device) to carry out the input commands. Kitchen is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of providing one or more visual representations corresponding to the metadata (Kitchen, Paragraph [0205]).
Regarding claim 4, Geral as modified by Halmstad and further modified by Kitchen teaches The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the computer-coded instructions further cause the apparatus to:
determine, based on the image data, a current state of the access permissions associated with the mobile device (Geral, Paragraph [0089], see “…target unit interaction software uses video analysis to confirm that the one or more target units has provided the correct image screen…target unit interaction software uses video analysis to confirm that the one or more target units has provided an image screen wherein that provides an option and/or functionality to reset the respective target unit 104”, where “confirm that the one or more target units has provided an image screen…” is being read as determining, based on the image data, a current state (which is determined based on the image screen) of the access permissions associated with the mobile device).
Regarding claim 5, Geral as modified by Halmstad and further modified by Kitchen teaches The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the current state of the access permissions associated with the mobile device is determined by a trained machine vision model (Geral, Paragraph [0062], see “…video analysis engine 462 may use various techniques (e.g., optical character recognition (OCR), image matching, segment matching, and/or color spectrum) to provide feedback to the user device when controlling, configuring, manufacturing, testing, diagnosing, and/or resetting the target unit”, which is being read as the current state of the access permissions associated with the mobile device is determined by a trained machine vision model (OCR)) (Geral, Paragraph [0080], see “…utilizing one or more techniques disclosed herein with respect to the OCR software engine, image comparison engine and/or key marker recognition engine”).
Regarding claim 6, Geral as modified by Halmstad and further modified by Kitchen teaches The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the computer-coded instructions further cause the apparatus to:
capture, in response to transmitting the signal to execute the simulated navigational input command of the sequence of navigational input commands, second image data (Geral, FIG. 5A, see “555”, which uses video analysis a second time (second image data) to confirm step 550 was successful); and
determine, based on the second image data, a second navigational state of the mobile device (Geral, FIG. 5A, see “560”, which determines a second navigational state of the mobile device (via HID commands) based on the second image data (based on the video analysis of 555)).
Regarding claim 7, Geral as modified by Halmstad and further modified by Kitchen teaches The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the computer-coded instructions further cause the apparatus to:
determine that the second navigational state is a correct navigational state corresponding to a happy-path navigational state (Geral, FIG. 5A, see “555”, which confirms step 550 was successful by using video analysis, which is being read as determining that the navigational state is a correct navigational state corresponding to a happy-path (according to Applicant’s specification, “is on track” to successfully elevate the access permissions)).
Regarding claims 13 and 23, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claims 14 and 24, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claims 15 and 25, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claims 16 and 26, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claims 17 and 27, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights