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 .
This Final office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment received on August 5, 2025 (“Amendment”).
Claims 1, 4, 10, 12-13, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, and 9 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 have been newly added. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10-23 are pending.
Official Notice Taken in Last Office Action
As official notice was taken in the previous office action, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner's assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate (see MPEP 2144.03 C). The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art include: detecting of unauthorized attempt to access an application that allows money to be transfer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 21-23 are directed to a mobile device, claims 10-17 directed to a method (i.e. process), while claim 18-20 are directed to a system. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 10 recites: A method comprising:
monitoring contextual conditions associated with a mobile device;
detecting, based on the monitoring of the contextual conditions, one or more contextual triggers indicating at least one potential risk event, the one or more contextual triggers including an audible trigger detected by a microphone of the mobile device or a visible trigger detected by a camera of the mobile device, the audible trigger or the visible trigger indicating the at least one potential risk event as unauthorized access to the mobile device for obtaining confidential information or personal property; and
performing, based on an occurrence of the one or more contextual triggers, a degradation protocol limiting access to one or more functions of the mobile device, the one or more functions normally providing access to at least one of personal information or device application access, the degradation protocol including an appearance of a malfunction or an actual malfunction of the mobile device.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))
The claim recites a process of monitoring conditions in context, detecting one or more contextual triggers indicating at least one potential risk event, and limiting access to one of personal information or access to an asset based on the occurrence of the one or more contextual triggers. The examiner further submits that the above concept is analogous to an organization such as bank closing its establishment for duration upon detecting one or more triggers indicating at least one potential risk event such as criminal activity. As such, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., mitigating risk and/or following rules or instructions). The claim also recites mental process, i.e., monitoring and detecting.
Independent claims 1 and 18 are significantly similar to claim 10. As such, claims 1 and 18 also recite abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., mobile device, microphone, camera, device application, degradation manager (computer instructions), computer-readable storage media, memory, and at least one processor, are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (i.e., mobile device) – see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim(s) as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the mobile device as the claim’s allegedly improvement is found only on the abstract idea of mitigating risk and/or components that make up the mobile device individually or in combination.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2 and 11 further narrows the description of the at least one potential risk event and type of the one or more contextual triggers, hence further recite abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 recite what the degradation protocol includes. As such, the claims further recite abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 further recite what the degradation protocol does, i.e., selects at least one of multiple degradation malfunctions based on the one or more contextual triggers that are detected. The additional element of degradation protocol is a mere instruction that performs the abstract idea, i.e., limiting of the resources.
Dependent claims 6-7 and 14-15 further recite abstract idea without further additional element previously addressed above.
Dependent claims 8, 16, and 19 further recite abstract idea. The claim(s) recite use of trained machine learning module. However, the machine learning module is recited at a high level generality that it amounts to mere instruction that performs the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 17 and 21 recite additional elements of detect the one or more contextual triggers by at least one of a microphone of the mobile device and a geolocation feature of the mobile device. The additional element(s), however, is mere data gathering
Claims 22 and 23 further expand on the abstract idea of analyzing of contextual conditions to determine likelihood of at least one potential risk event and selecting of one of the malfunctions based on the one or more contextual triggers that are detected. The additional element of use of the trained machine learning module is recited at high level generality that it represents mere instruction to perform the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2013/0260717 A1 (“Miyaki”).
Per claims 1, 10, and 18, Miyaki teaches a method comprising:
monitoring contextual conditions associated with a mobile device (¶0034, display timeout is altered based on risk … geographic location; ¶0035; ¶0036, when there are more people around, generally there exists a greater risk of theft; ¶0058, sensors can be used to determine risk);
detecting, based on the monitoring of the contextual conditions, one or more contextual triggers indicating at least one potential risk event, the one or more contextual triggers including an audible trigger detected by a microphone of the mobile device or a visible trigger detected by a camera of the mobile device, the audible trigger or the visible trigger indicating the at least one potential risk event as unauthorized access to the mobile device for obtaining confidential information or personal property (0007, mobile devices often contain sensitive information; ¶0034, display timeout is altered based on risk … geographic location; ¶0035; ¶0036, audio noise measured through a microphone can be used to determine if the device is in the midst of a crowd … greater risk of theft; ¶0058, sensors can be used to determine risk; ¶0059-¶0060, theft); and
performing, based on an occurrence of the one or more contextual triggers, a degradation protocol limiting access to one or more functions of the mobile device, the one or more functions normally providing access to at least one of personal information or device application access the degradation protocol including an appearance of a malfunction or an actual malfunction of the mobile device ((¶0034, display timeout is altered based on risk … geographic location; ¶0035; ¶0036; ¶0058, sensors can be used to determine risk; ¶0059; ¶0061, display lock; ¶0064-0065; use of accelerometer to control lockout; ¶0073, lock the device)(the examiner submits that an operation that locks out the mobile phone is malfunctioning of the device as lockout prevents normal usage).
Miyaki further teaches a mobile device comprising a microphone, a camera, at least one processor coupled with a memory; and a performance degradation manager (¶0097, mobile device running software applications wherein the mobile device comprises CPU, memory storing applications and data for use by the CPU and storage for application and data … video cameras and/or microphones).
As per claims 6-7 and 14-15, Miyaki further teaches nullifying the degradation protocol based on one or more subsequent contextual triggers indicating a lack of the potential risk event wherein the one or more subsequent contextual triggers include at least one of a low-risk location or securing of the at least one personal information or device application access (¶0034, timeout period for the device can be adjusted upward for low risk areas; ¶0039).
As per claim 11, Miyaki further teaches wherein the one or more contextual triggers include at least one of an audible contextual trigger, a visual contextual trigger, a locational contextual trigger, or a personal contextual trigger (¶0034, display timeout is altered based on risk … geographic location; ¶0035; ¶0036, microphone; ¶0058, sensors can be used to determine risk; ¶0059-¶0060, theft).
As per claim 13, Miyaki futher teaches wherein the appearance of a malfunction or the actual malfunction is selected as at least one of multiple degradation malfunctions based on the one or more contextual triggers that are detected (¶0034-0035, automatically adjusting of timeout period based on risk; ¶0036, timeout on the device can be adjusted accordingly based on determined risk).
As per claim 17, Miyaki further teaches wherein the one or more contextual triggers are detected by the microphone of the mobile device and a geolocation feature of the mobile device (¶0034, display timeout is altered based on risk … geographic location … GPS antenna; ¶0035, GPS; ¶0036, microphone; ¶0058, sensors can be used to determine risk; ¶0059-¶0060, theft).
As per claim 21, Miyaki further teaches wherein the one or more contextual triggers includes the audible trigger received by the microphone of the mobile device (¶0036, audio noise measured through a microphone can be used to determine if the device is in the midst of a crowd … greater risk of theft).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0260717 A1 (“Miyaki”) in view of Admitted Prior Art (“APA”).
As per claim 2, Miyaki does not particularly teach wherein the at least one potential risk event is an unauthorized attempt to access an application that allows money to be transferred.
APA teaches detecting of unauthorized attempt to access an application that allows money to be transfer.
As Miyaki generally teaches controlling access of the mobile device in the case of unauthorized attempt as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include any known unauthorized attempt including to access an application that allows money to be transferred as object of protection in Miyaji.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0260717 A1 (“Miyaki”) in further view of US 2014/0038556 A1 (“De Sousa”)
Per claims 4, 12, and 20, Miyaki does not specifically teach wherein the degradation protocol includes an appearance of the malfunction as at least one of an application update, a touch screen malfunction, a display malfunction, a connection malfunction, a power failure, or a redirection.
De Sousa teaches degradation protocol includes an appearance of a malfunction selected from at least one of an application update, a touch screen malfunction, a display malfunction, a connection malfunction, a power failure, or a redirection (see Abstract, wipe user data, display a permanent message on the screen of the mobile device, incapable of receiving user input, etc.)
Hence as Miyaki teaches limiting access to the mobile device including lockout features as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claim(s) to include any known limiting access techniques as taught by De Sousa as limiting access technique of Miyaki as the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 8, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0260717 A1 (“Miyaki”) in further view of US 2024/0143830 A1 (“Blais”).
Per claims 8, 16, and 19, Miyaki does not particularly teach wherein the detecting of the one or more contextual triggers includes analyzing, using a trained machine learning module, the contextual conditions to determine a likelihood of the at least one potential risk event.
Blais, however, teaches wherein the detecting of the one or more contextual triggers includes analyzing, using a trained machine learning module, the contextual conditions to determine a likelihood of the at least one potential risk event (¶0034, machine learning model trained to perform predictions; ¶0037, can received sensor data to predict using the machine learning model theft situation).
As Miyaki is generally directed to detecting theft situation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the invention to utilize any known detection technique, i.e., use of trained machine learning module as taught by Blais, as a detection technique in Miyaki as the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0260717 A1 (“Miyaki”) in further view of US 20200285249 A1 (“Woods”).
As per claim 22, Miyaki anticipates claim 1 as described above. Miyaki teaches wherein the performance degradation manager is configured to cause the mobile device analyze contextual condition to determine likelihood of the at least potential risk event (i.e., risk) and to select at least one of multiple degradation malfunctions based on the one or more contextual triggers that are detected (¶0034-0035, automatically adjusting of timeout period based on risk; ¶0036, timeout on the device can be adjusted accordingly based on determined risk).
Miyaki, however, does not specifically teach that the performance degradation manager is configured to cause the mobile device to analyze, using a trained machine learning module, contextual condition to determine the likelihood of the at least one potential risk event.
Woods, however, teaches wherein the detecting of the one or more contextual triggers includes analyzing, using a trained machine learning module, the contextual conditions to determine a likelihood of the at least one potential risk event (¶0054, an acoustic event is analyzed to determine whether a legitimate request for help (e.g., distressed call for help, distressed voice, muffled voice) is present. Audio of the acoustic event can be analyzed by a neural network (e.g., AI) trained to detect a legitimate request for help. In some embodiments, a distressed voice detection neural network can be used to detect a legitimate request for help. The distressed voice detection neural network can be a deep neural network (e.g., recurrent neural network), a CNN, etc. The distressed voice detection neural network can be trained using a data training data set having audio of real and/or simulated distressed voice (e.g., screams for help, cries for help, muffled voices, muffled screams, multiple people screaming, and panic). An acoustic event can be classified to be a legitimate request for help if the confidence of accuracy (generated by the distressed voice detection neural network) is above a certain accuracy threshold (e.g., 60%). In some embodiments, threat assessment module 225 can include algorithms and instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform one or more functions of process 700 as described above and the function of threat assessment as described with respect to FIG. 2).
As Miyaki is generally directed to analyzing the noise measured through a microphone for determining risk involving theft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the invention to utilize any known detection technique, i.e., use of trained machine learning module as taught by Woods, as a determining risk technique in Miyaki as the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the technique of using trained machine learning module as the combination provides improvement to the autonomous threat detection by teaching the mobile device.
As per claim 23, Miyaki anticipates claim 21 as described above. Miyaki further teaches wherein the performance degradation manager is configured to cause the mobile device analyze contextual condition to determine likelihood of the at least potential risk event (i.e., risk) (¶0034-0035, automatically adjusting of timeout period based on risk; ¶0036, timeout on the device can be adjusted accordingly based on determined risk).
Miyaki, however, does not specifically teach that the performance degradation manager is configured to cause the mobile device to analyze, using a trained machine learning module, contextual condition to determine the likelihood of the at least one potential risk event and that the trained machine learning module analyzes the audible trigger.
Woods, however, teaches wherein the detecting of the one or more contextual triggers includes analyzing, using a trained machine learning module, the contextual conditions to determine a likelihood of the at least one potential risk event and the trained machine learning module analyzes the audible trigger (¶0054, an acoustic event is analyzed to determine whether a legitimate request for help (e.g., distressed call for help, distressed voice, muffled voice) is present. Audio of the acoustic event can be analyzed by a neural network (e.g., AI) trained to detect a legitimate request for help. In some embodiments, a distressed voice detection neural network can be used to detect a legitimate request for help. The distressed voice detection neural network can be a deep neural network (e.g., recurrent neural network), a CNN, etc. The distressed voice detection neural network can be trained using a data training data set having audio of real and/or simulated distressed voice (e.g., screams for help, cries for help, muffled voices, muffled screams, multiple people screaming, and panic). An acoustic event can be classified to be a legitimate request for help if the confidence of accuracy (generated by the distressed voice detection neural network) is above a certain accuracy threshold (e.g., 60%). In some embodiments, threat assessment module 225 can include algorithms and instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform one or more functions of process 700 as described above and the function of threat assessment as described with respect to FIG. 2).
As Miyaki is generally directed to analyzing the noise measured through a microphone for determining risk involving theft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the invention to utilize any known detection technique, i.e., use of trained machine learning module as taught by Woods, as a determining risk technique in Miyaki as the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the technique of using trained machine learning module as the combination provides improvement to the autonomous threat detection by teaching the mobile device.
Response to Arguments
101
The applicant asserts that a mobile device having a microphone, a camera, at least one processor, and a performance degradation manager as defined is, by itself, not abstract idea and therefore the 101 rejection should be withdrawn (page 9 of the Amendment).
In response, the applicant is reminded that the action follows the MPEP 2106 in determination of patent subject matter eligibility, particularly in determining Step 2A test, i.e., whether the claim recites an abstract idea in the first prong test followed by whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In other words, additional element recitation alone does not make the claim eligible under the test.
The applicant further asserts that claim 1 defines specific components of a specific device performing a particular specific practical application and that the utility of that practical application is discussed ad nauseam in the application (page 10 of the Amendment).
In response, the examiner would like to point out that the camera and the microphone recited in the claim merely are additional element in gathering of the data that is use in determining one potential risk event. The at least one processor and the performance degradation manager are mere computer instructions/computer component to perform the abstract idea. The allegedly improvement is found in abstract idea as described above and “apply it” on mobile device.
Prior Art Rejection
The applicant asserts that none of the cited references discloses either a microphone of a mobile device detecting an audible trigger or a camera of a mobile device detecting a visible trigger for an indication of at least one potential risk event as unauthorized access to the mobile device for obtaining confidential information or personal property (see page 11 of the Amendment).
The examiner respectfully disagrees as Miyaki specifically teaches a camera of a mobile device and a microphone of the mobile device (see at least [0013]; [0035]; [0036]; [0058]; [0097]). Miyaki further teaches that the audio noise can be used to determine if the device is in the midst of a crowd, particularly that there exists a greater risk of theft when there are more people around ([0036]). Timeout of the device is controlled based on the risk of theft ([0006]; [0037]).
The applicant disagrees with the rejection of claims 4, 12, and 20 as I) the reasoning for the combination of DeSousa with Miyaki is flawed and/or absent; II) the context of Miyaki and DeSousa render their combination non-sensical and undesirable for the POSA; and III) Miyaki and Sousa are not in the same field of endeavor.
In response to the applicant’s argument related to the reasoning for the combination of DeSousa with Miyaki, the examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the timeout of the mobile device itself would read on a display malfunction as the timeout of the mobile device based on risk is not a normal event. Furthermore, the fact that the degradation protocol includes the particulars of the appearance of a malfunction as recited in the claim does not exclude the degradation protocol as being a timeout as the “includes” is an open-ended expression. However, in order for compact prosecution, the examiner had further produced De Sousa that teaches degradation protocol that wipes user data or display a permanent message on the screen of the mobile device. For example, Miyaki does not specifically teach wherein the degradation protocol includes an appearance of the malfunction as at least one of an application update, a touch screen malfunction, a display malfunction, a connection malfunction, a power failure, or a redirection. De Sousa teaches degradation protocol includes an appearance of a malfunction selected from at least one of an application update, a touch screen malfunction, a display malfunction, a connection malfunction, a power failure, or a redirection (see Abstract, wipe user data, display a permanent message on the screen of the mobile device, incapable of receiving user input, etc.) Hence as Miyaki teaches limiting access to the mobile device including lockout features as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claim(s) to include any known limiting access techniques as taught by De Sousa as limiting access technique of Miyaki as the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument(s) related to II). Miyaki’s invention is directed to controlling of the mobile device’s function based on determined risk for theft as described in the rejection above. One of ordinary skill in the art in reading Miyaki that as the risk becomes more evident for theft, the protection increases, i.e., particular duration of the timeout. Miyaki does not particularly teach degradation protocol includes the appearance of a malfunction as at least one of an application update, a touchscreen malfunction, a display malfunction, a connection malfunction, a power failure, or a redirection. De Sousa, however, teaches degradation protocol includes the appearance of a malfunction as at least one of an application update, a touchscreen malfunction, a display malfunction, a connection malfunction, a power failure, or a redirection (see [0013]). As Miyaki discloses on type of degradation protocol but with varying degradation protocol (timing aspect), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claim(s) to include any known limiting access techniques as taught by De Sousa as limiting access technique of Miyaki as the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Furthermore, the applicant is reminded that the teaching that was relied from De Sousa is degradation protocol only.
In responding to the applicant’s assertion that Miyaki and Sousa are not in the same field of endeavor, the examiner respectfully disagree as both are in the field of mobile device protection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140258110 A1 discloses detecting unauthorized use of wallet application;
US 20110065419 A1 discloses a system and a method of controlling a mobile device including locking, initiating alarm, initiating selective wiping of files, etc. based on situations involving the mobile device;
US 9220011 B1 discloses a system and a method of determining theft status on a mobile device and an operating system on the mobile device that performs at least one theft response selected from boot-up of the mobile communication device.
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 STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698