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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney et al. Pub. No. US 20210350034 A1 in view of Nadig et al. Patent No. US 11258746 B1
Regarding Claim 1, Delaney teaches a mobile device (Fig. 1 and Para 20, device 100 i.e., mobile device) comprising:
at least one memory (fig. 1 Unit 150, memory); and at least one processor (Fig. 1 Unit 110, processor) coupled to the at least one memory (Para 23, The processors 110 can have access to a memory 150 in a device or distributed across multiple devices) and configured to cause the mobile device to:
detect (Para 45 and Fig. 4 Step 406, detect whether abnormal device usage is occurring) that encoded account information (Para 39, A device usage pattern can be based on usage conditions, such as a current location, changes made to settings, particular data access events (e.g., passwords or personal data access), application uses, bandwidth patterns, physical device movement (e.g., IMU data), a SIM card change event, financial events (e.g., e-commerce purchases), current user facial recognition data, other user I/O events, network traffic, etc. A usage pattern can be a typical usage pattern (e.g., typical use by a particular user) or an abnormal usage pattern (e.g., use that is typical for a stolen device) i.e., encoded account information is generated for display on a screen of the mobile device (Para 45, Depending on the type of device usage pattern learned at block 402, comparing current usage conditions to usage patterns can include determining a threshold match between the current usage conditions and a set of usage conditions learned at block 402 or applying the current usage conditions to a machine learning model trained at block 402. In various implementations, identifying abnormal device usage can include determining that current usage conditions do not sufficiently match a normal usage pattern or can include determining that current usage conditions sufficiently match an abnormal usage pattern i.e., encoded information is generated for display on a screen of the mobile device);
activate a setting of the mobile device based on detecting that the encoded account information is generated for display and a determination that the setting is off (Para 45, At block 406, process 400 can detect whether abnormal device usage is occurring i.e., activate a setting of the mobile device. Depending on the type of device usage pattern learned at block 402, comparing current usage conditions to usage patterns can include determining a threshold match between the current usage conditions and a set of usage conditions learned at block 402 or applying the current usage conditions to a machine learning model trained at block 402. In various implementations, identifying abnormal device usage can include determining that current usage conditions do not sufficiently match a normal usage pattern or can include determining that current usage conditions sufficiently match an abnormal usage pattern i.e., activate a setting of the mobile device based on detecting that the encoded account information is generated for display and a determination that the setting is off);
detect dismissal of the encoded account information from display (Para 47, abnormal device usage has been detected and, unless an override is provided within a threshold amount of time (e.g., 30 seconds, 1, 2, or 5 minutes, etc.), the device will disable itself i.e., activate setting. Providing an override can include entering a master password, providing a biometric reading, performing a two-factor authentication, etc. In some cases, a provided override can indicate that the abnormal usage match at block 406 was incorrect, and so process 400 can retrain the learned device usage pattern with additional training data including the current usage conditions as a counterexample for abnormal usage i.e., detect dismissal of the encoded account information from display); and
deactivate the setting based on the dismissal of the encoded account information (Para 47, if the override was provided, process 400 can return to block 404 i.e., deactivate the Do Not Disturb setting based on the dismissal of the encoded account information).
Delaney does not teach that the setting is the Do Not Disturb setting.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nadig teaches from a user device 310 has a device profile 320 that is associated with a user account 330. A DND setting 322 is maintained in the device profile 320 i.e., DND setting. After the DND setting 322 is set to active i.e., activate a DND setting, outbound communications 340 is initiated from the user device 310 to a destination designated as an emergency destination i.e., based on detecting that an outbound communication i.e., encoded account information is generated and determining that the DND setting is off. Accordingly, override data 350 is generated and associated with the user account 330 i.e., if the emergency is detected than deactivate DND setting i.e., deactivate the DND setting based on the dismissal of the information. Thereafter, inbound communications 360 destined to the user device 310 is received within a time frame during which the override data 350 is valid i.e., detect the DND setting. Accordingly, the user device 310 is instructed to play a ringtone 370, thereby overriding the DND setting 322 (Col 7 L 42-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Delaney with the method of Nadig so as to enable or disable setting based upon detecting the patten of the device thus securing user data.
Regarding Claim 2, Delaney teaches wherein activation of the Do Not Disturb setting is in response to the at least one processor causing the mobile device to detect the generation of the encoded account information (Para 33).
Regarding Claim 3, Delaney teaches wherein activation of the Do Not Disturb setting is based on the at least one processor causing the mobile device to determine that the generation of the encoded account information is associated with finance-related account information (Paras 39).
Regarding Claim 4, Delaney teaches wherein activation of the Do Not Disturb setting is based on the at least one processor causing the mobile device to determine that the generation of the encoded account information is by a finance-related application (Paras 39).
Regarding Claim 5, Delaney teaches wherein activation of the Do Not Disturb setting is based on the at least one processor causing the mobile device to determine that the generation of the encoded account information is associated with a payment transaction between the mobile device and another mobile device (Para 39, financial events (e.g., e-commerce purchases)).
Regarding Claim 7, Delaney teaches wherein the determination that the Do Not Disturb setting is off is based on the at least one processor causing the mobile device to: capture and store a record of one or more settings of the mobile device that includes at least the Do Not Disturb setting; and determine, based on the capturing, that the one or more settings indicate that the Do Not Disturb setting is off (Para 45).
Regarding Claim 9, Delaney teaches wherein deactivation of the Do Not Disturb setting is based on is based on the at least one processor causing the mobile device to receive a confirmation from another mobile device that a transaction associated with the encoded account information is complete (Para 52).
Regarding Claim 10, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further teaches a system comprising (Fig. 2, system): a display device (Fig. 2 Unit 205; an application executing on a mobile device (Fig. 1 Unit 166, application); and a privacy controller configured to control aspects of mobile application user privacy protection (Fig. 1 Unit 164, pattern-based control system).
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney et al. Pub. No. US 20210350034 A1 in view of Nadig et al. Patent No. US 11258746 B1 and further in view of Parah-Asante et al. Pub. No. US 20140277932 A1
Regarding Claim 6, Delaney teaches based on the generation of the encoded account information being associated with the payment transaction between the mobile device and another mobile device (Para 39).
Delaney and Nadig does not specifically teach
wherein the at least one processor causes the mobile device to display a visual prompt on the screen of the mobile device indicating that the Do Not Disturb setting is activated.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Prakah-Asante teaches an augmented visual indicator configured to prompt a driver based on real-time conditions. The interface screen 1101 may have a do not disturb button 1103 that is selectable by a user. However, the DND button 1105 may also be configured to automatically prompt the driver based on the vehicle surroundings. If the LTI output calculation is above a threshold value, a reminder 1105 may flash or display to prompt the driver that the DND function has been activated (Para 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Delaney with the method of Nadig and further in view of Prakah-Asante so as to update the user that previous settings that have activated may be overrode and the message is displayed to the user device thus override certain settings to enforce stricker requirements for displaying message (See Prakah-Asante Para 67).
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney et al. Pub. No. US 20210350034 A1 in view of Nadig et al. Patent No. US 11258746 B1 and further in view of Navarro et al. Pub. No. US 20200242517 A1
Regarding Claim 8, Delaney and Nadig does not specifically teach
wherein generation of the encoded account information is based on the at least one processor causing the mobile device to generate a graphical code that includes at least one of a quick response (QR) code, a bar code, a data matrix, or a universal product code.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Navarro teaches from Fig. 10 the example poster 1000 is branded by a financial institution and may identify a particular bank branch. Notably, the machine-readable indicium 1010 is a QR-code with a payload providing a branch identifier, “First Bank Branch #23”, such as may correspond to a particular branch of the financial institution i.e., mobile device to generate a graphical code that includes at least one of a quick response (QR) code, a bar code, a data matrix, or a universal product code (Para 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Delaney with the method of Nadig and further in view of Navarro so as to provide metadata identifying a corresponding information (See Navarrow Para 100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xie Pub. No. US 20250280065 A1 - IMPLEMENTATION METHOD OF FULLY INTELLIGENT AND SECURE MOBILE PHONE
Chen Pub. No. US 20250233938 A1 - NOTIFICATION MESSAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS
Sarkar Pub. No. US 20240070317 A1 - METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR PERSONALIZING USER DATA PRIVACY AND UTILITY
Johnston et al. Pub. No. US 20220408268 A1 - RESOURCE CONNECTIVITY FOR MULTIPLE DEVICES
Xu et al. Pub. No. US 20220335406 A1 - DISPLAY METHOD FOR FOLDABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
Hwang et al. Pub. No. US 20210092219 A1 - APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD FOR RECOMMENDING DO-NOT-DISTURB MODE BASED ON CONTEXT-AWARENESS
Liu et al. Pub. No. US 20200092293 A1 - CONTEXT-BASED AUTOMATED TASK PERFORMANCE FOR USER CONTACTS
Hamme et al. Patent No. US 10547744 B2 - Methods, apparatus and systems for adjusting do-not-disturb (DND) levels based on callers and meeting attendees
Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20190273818 A1 - CALL METHOD OF MOBILE TERMINAL, MOBILE TERMINAL CONTROL METHOD, AND RELATED DEVICE
Johnson et al. Pub. No. US 20180338035 A1 - VOICE COMMUNICATION METHOD
Yoon et al. Pub. No. US 20150195789 A1 - MOBILE TERMINAL AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
Saarimaki et al. Pub. No. US 20120250517 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING DEVICE OPERATIONAL MODES BASED ON CONTEXT INFORMATION
IM presence detector – 2009
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647