DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2026-01-06 has been entered and fully considered.
In light of applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 2026-01-06, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 2026-01-06, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Silva fails to anticipate “wherein the third-party application is configured to have at least one attribute that enables access to sensitive data by way of the third-party application while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the non-guarded mode,” and “based on the operating system transitioning to the guarded mode, modifying the at least one attribute of the third-party application to restrict the access to the sensitive data by way of the third-party application”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Silva operates in an opposite fashion of the claimed invention, as Silva provides access to sensitive data (e.g. banking information or apps) only in “secure mode”, whereas the claims provide designated third-party apps access to sensitive data only when operating in non-guarded mode. However, this argument hinges on the following premise noted by Applicant – that the “Office Action apparently equates Silva’s ‘secure mode’ to the claimed guarded mode”. Although this was initially true, by changing that equating (as necessitated by amendment) of the disclosed “secure mode” to the claimed “non-guarded mode” (and similarly equate the disabled “secure mode” state to the claimed “guarded mode”), then Silva anticipates the claim. However, this changed mapping does not comport with the limitations of dependent claim 2, as noted infra. In addition, the original mapping also works when considered that an app in “secure mode” that is placed in a suspended state can no longer access any files – sensitive or otherwise.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 2026-01-06, with respect to the claim amendments overcoming the cited prior art references of the rejection of claims 2-3 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (in the context of the amendment to parent claims 1 and 19) have been fully considered and are persuasive (See Interview Summary). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; however, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection – as necessitated by amendment – is made in view of newly cited prior art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2026-01-06 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 § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silva Pinto et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20160381026-A1, hereinafter “Silva”).
With respect to independent claim 1, Silva discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, a user input, wherein each of an operating system and a third-party application is installed on the computing device {para. 0043: “operating system” and “applications”}, wherein the operating system is configured to operate in a guarded mode or a non-guarded mode {paras. 0039-0041: “the operating system” has a “secure mode” which may be enabled or disabled}, and wherein the third-party application is configured to have at least one attribute that enables access to sensitive data by way of the third-party application while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the non-guarded mode {paras. 0040-0043 & 0056-0057: “list of important system binaries will be submitted to the OS kernel in order to allow system processes in ‘secure mode’”, where the “button/icon” state changes in modes; when “secure mode” is disabled, “the operating system kernel to eventually release/continue a process/application that was stopped/suspended” (thereby enabling access to files) and/or, when “secure mode” is enabled “protected application files and important system processes binaries” are then accessible to system processes/applications that were configured to be available on “secure mode”}.
determining, while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the non-guarded mode, whether the received user input matches a user input configured to initiate the guarded mode of the operating system of the computing device {para. 0041: “continuously checks if the ‘Secure Mode’ was enabled or disabled by the user”}.
determining that the received user input matches the user input configured to initiate the guarded mode {para. 0041: “continuously checks if the ‘Secure Mode’ was enabled or disabled by the user”}.
in response to the determining that the received user input matches the user input configured to initiate the guarded mode:
causing the operating system of the computing device to transition from the non-guarded mode to the guarded mode {para. 0043: “operating system kernel suspends all unnecessary system processes/applications that were not configured to be available on ‘secure mode’, hides protected application, restricts inter-process communications and enforces privilege escalation events”}.
based on the operating system transitioning to the guarded mode, modifying the at least one attribute of the third-party application to restrict the access to the sensitive data by way of the third-party application {paras. 0043, 0050, & 0056-0057: “operating system kernel suspends all unnecessary system processes/applications that were not configured to be available on ‘secure mode’, hides protected application” (an application that is forced into suspension cannot access data) and/or “the operating system kernel denies any access/privilege (open, read, write, run) to the protected application files … when ‘secure mode’ is disabled”}.
With respect to claim 19, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 19; therefore, claim 19 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-3 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva Pinto et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20160381026-A1, hereinafter “Silva”) in view of Nalluri et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150220734-A1, hereinafter “Nalluri”) and Nalluri et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210042262-A1, hereinafter “Nair”).
With respect to dependent claim 2, although Silva teaches disabling an application in secure mode and indicating that the application is disabled by changing the application’s icon (e.g. Fig 5), Silva does not explicitly disclose hiding the application’s icon altogether; however, Nalluri discloses wherein the at least one attribute of the third-party application while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the non-guarded mode comprises providing an icon for the third-party application for display at a user interface of the computing device; and wherein the modifying the at least one attribute of the third-party application comprises, while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the guarded mode, preventing display via the user interface of the icon for the third-party application {para. 0074: “home screens can include icons of applications that are available within that corresponding mode, hiding or obscuring the icons of other applications that are protected within that mode”}.
It is additionally noted that the mapping of the claimed “guarded mode” to the disabled “secure mode” of Silva as cited for claim 1 is not tenable with this limitation. However, if the claimed “guarded mode” is mapped to the “secure mode” of Silva, then the system of Silva and Nalluri do not disclose that the third-party application may access the sensitive data while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the non-guarded mode but not access the sensitive data while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the guarded mode.
However, Nair discloses a file that may be accessible by an operating system or any of a number of different programs, wherein the file may file may include sensitive information {paras. 0016 & 0035: “a ‘file’ refers to a self-contained collection of data, which may be accessible by an operating system or any of a number of different programs” and “a particular file may include sensitive information (e.g., salary information, social security numbers, and so forth)”}. The Examiner notes that any file with sensitive data would not be accessible by any application in a suspended state because such an application cannot perform any operations.
Silva and Nalluri are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem-solving area of mobile application management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Silva and Nalluri before him or her, to modify/develop the secure mode of Silva’s system to utilize application icon hiding. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would have been because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., improves security by not revealing the protected applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the secure mode in Silva’s system with application icon hiding to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s). The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
Silva-Nalluri and Nair are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem-solving area of file management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Silva-Nalluri and Nair before him or her, to modify/develop the operating system of Silva-Nalluri’s system to utilize files that may be accessed by multiple applications. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would have been because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., enables a user to easily share data between applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the operating system in Silva-Nalluri’s system with files that may be accessed by multiple applications to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s). The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Nalluri discloses:
wherein, while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the non-guarded mode, a plurality of icons for third-party applications, including the icon for the third-party application, are provided for display at the user interface of the computing device {para. 0074: “home screens can include icons of applications that are available within that corresponding mode”}.
the method further comprises, while preventing the display of the icon for the third-party application via the user interface while the operating system of the computing device is operating in the guarded mode, continuing to display other icons of the plurality of icons for other third- party applications {para. 0074: “home screens can include icons of applications that are available within that corresponding mode”}.
With respect to claims 20-21, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claims 2-3 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 20-21; therefore, claims 20-21 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claims 2-3.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, William (“Bill”) Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/Kevin Bechtel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491