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 .
Preliminary Amendment
1. The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on January 26, 2024 as modified by the preliminary amendment also filed on January 26, 2024. Claims 23-42 are now pending in the present application and Claims 1-22 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 and 01/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
3. Claim(s) 23-29, 34-37 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2020/0279036 A1) in view of Tsai et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2015/0301664 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Ulrich et al discloses an apparatus (figures 1-2, an electronic device 100/202; paragraphs 0034-0035) , comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (figure 1, a memory subsystem 104; paragraph 0027); and one or more processors coupled to the memory (figure 1, a processing subsystem 102; paragraphs 0026-0027); and configured to execute the instructions to: detect, when the apparatus is in a locked state (paragraphs 0020-0021, 0035, and 0061 “… For the proximity unlock operation, a first electronic device in a locked operating state detects that an authorized second electronic device is in proximity to the first electronic device”), whether the apparatus establishes a short-range wireless communication connection to an electronic device and whether an intelligent unlocking use condition is met (paragraphs 0083-0085),unlock, by using the electronic device, the apparatus when the apparatus establishes the short-range wireless communication connection and the intelligent unlocking use condition is met (paragraphs 0035, 0061 and 0086, “…After determining that authorized electronic device 204 is an authorized device and that authorized electronic device 204 is within the threshold distance from electronic device 202, electronic device 202 approves the connection request (step 704). As described above, upon approving the connection request, electronic device 202 transitions state to an unlocked operating state. from the locked operating); detect, before the apparatus is in a screen-off state, whether an intelligent locking use condition is met (paragraph 0087 and 0089); and lock the apparatus when the intelligent locking use condition is met (paragraphs 0035, 0089-0091).
Ulrich et al silent to the detect locking use condition before the apparatus is in a screen-off state
Tsai et al discloses detecting locking use condition before or after the apparatus is in a screen-off state (paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Tsai et al in to the apparatus of Ulrich et al, such that the locking use condition could be detected before the apparatus is in a screen-off state in order to prevent inadvertent user inputs on the touch screen as taught by Tsai et al (paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 24, Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al discloses the apparatus of claim 23. Ulrich et al discloses wherein the intelligent unlocking use condition and the intelligent locking use condition are the same (paragraphs 0064 and 0089 use of broadcasting an advertisement message).
Regarding claim 25, Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al discloses the apparatus of claim 23. Ulrich et al discloses wherein the intelligent unlocking use condition and the intelligent locking use condition are different (paragraph 0085-0086 and use of threshold distance).
Regarding claim 26, Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al discloses the apparatus of claim 23. Ulrich et al discloses wherein the intelligent unlocking use condition comprises: a short-range wireless communication signal strength of the apparatus or the electronic device (paragraphs 0085); a wearing status of the electronic device (paragraphs 0035, 0052, 0083,0086); the electronic device having been unlocked and password-protected (paragraphs 0077 and 0081-0082); a distance between the apparatus and the electronic device; or a speed, an atmospheric pressure, a heart rate, an ambient brightness, or an ambient sound sensed by the apparatus or the electronic device ((paragraphs 0085-0086).
Regarding claim 27, Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al discloses the apparatus of claim 23. Ulrich et al discloses wherein the intelligent unlocking use condition comprises: a connection status of short-range wireless communication between the apparatus and the electronic device (paragraph 0087); a short-range wireless communication signal strength of the apparatus or the electronic device (paragraphs 0085); a wearing status of an unlocking device of the electronic device (paragraph 0086); a distance between the apparatus and the electronic device; or a speed, an atmospheric pressure, a heart rate, an ambient brightness, or an ambient sound sensed by the apparatus or the electronic device (paragraphs 0085-0086).
Regarding claim 28, Ulrich et al discloses an apparatus (figures 1-2, an electronic device 100/202; paragraphs 0034-0035) comprising: a memory configured to store instructions(figure 1, a memory subsystem 104; paragraph 0027); and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (figure 1, a processing subsystem 102; paragraphs 0026-0027) to: return, after detecting that an electronic device enters a locked state and after connecting with the electronic device via a short-range wireless communication connection, first device information of the apparatus to the electronic device (paragraph 0061, 0063, 0079, “…after broadcasting the advertisement message (step 502), electronic device 202 receives a connection request message comprising a connection request from authorized electronic device 204” A first device (i.e., an authorized electronic device 204) information of the apparatus to the electronic device(i.e., an electronic device 202)), wherein the first device information instructs the electronic device to detect whether the electronic device meets an intelligent unlocking use condition (paragraphs 0071”); perform, when detecting that the electronic device establishes the short-range wireless communication connection to the apparatus and meets the intelligent unlocking use condition, intelligent unlocking on the electronic device by using the apparatus (paragraphs 0071, 0077 and 0082); and return, after detecting that an intelligent unlocking has been performed on the electronic device, second device information of the apparatus to the electronic device, wherein the second device information instructs the electronic device to detect whether an intelligent locking use condition is met (paragraphs 0072, and 0087-0088).
Regarding claim 29, and as applied to the claim 28 above, claim 29 is similar in scope to the claim 26 and thus the rejection to claim 26 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 29.
Regarding claim 34, and as applied to the claim 28 above, claim 34 is similar in scope to the claim 24 and thus the rejection to claim 24 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, and as applied to the claim 28 above, claim 35 is similar in scope to the claim 25 and thus the rejection to claim 25 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is similar in scope to the claim 28 except in method form and thus the rejection to claim 28 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, and as applied to the claim 36 above, claim 37 is similar in scope to the claim 29 and thus the rejection to claim 29 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 37.
Regarding claim 42, and as applied to the claim 36 above, claim 42 is similar in scope to the claim 24 and thus the rejection to claim 24 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 42.
4. Claim(s) 30-33 and 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2020/0279036 A1) in view of Tsai et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2015/0301664 A1) further in view of Maragoudakis et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2018/0007558 A1)
Regarding claim 30, Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al discloses the apparatus of claim 28. Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to send, before performing intelligent unlocking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to intelligently unlock the electronic device.
Maragoudakis et al discloses one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to send, before performing intelligent unlocking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to intelligently unlock an electronic device (paragraph 0256).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Maragoudakis et al in to the apparatus of Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al, such that the one or more processors could be configured to execute the instructions to send, before performing intelligent unlocking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to intelligently unlock an electronic device in order to provide an enhanced level of security as taught by Maragoudakis et al (paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 31, Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al discloses the apparatus of claim 28. Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to send, after performing intelligent unlocking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to cancel intelligent unlocking of the electronic device.
Maragoudakis et al discloses one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to send, after performing intelligent unlocking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to cancel intelligent unlocking of the electronic device (paragraph 0256).
Regarding claim 32, Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al discloses the apparatus of claim 28. Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to send, before performing intelligent locking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to intelligently lock the electronic device.
Maragoudakis et al discloses one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to send, before performing intelligent locking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to intelligently lock the electronic device (paragraph 0256).
Regarding claim 33, Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al discloses the apparatus of claim 28. Ulrich et al in view of Tsai et al does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to send, after performing intelligent locking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to cancel intelligent locking of the electronic device.
Maragoudakis et al discloses one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to send, after performing intelligent locking on the electronic device, an information prompt for determining whether to cancel intelligent locking of the electronic device(paragraph 0256).
Regarding claim 38, and as applied to the claim 36 above, claim 38 is similar in scope to the claim 30 and thus the rejection to claim 30 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 38.
Regarding claim 39, and as applied to the claim 36 above, claim 39 is similar in scope to the claim 31 and thus the rejection to claim 31 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, and as applied to the claim 36 above, claim 40 is similar in scope to the claim 32 and thus the rejection to claim 32 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 40.
Regarding claim 41, and as applied to the claim 36 above, claim 41 is similar in scope to the claim 33 and thus the rejection to claim 33 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 41.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATUMA G SHERIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7189. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, PAN YUWEN can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/FATUMA G SHERIF/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights