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 Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 9/3/2025.
In instant Amendment, claims 1-10, 12, 13 and 16-21 have been amended; claim 11 has been canceled; claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 1-10, 12, 13 and 16-22 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
The Claim Objection to claims 2-13 and 16-21 have been withdrawn as the claims have been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection(s) have been considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection; however, the examiner notes the following:
Applicant Argues: Accordingly, the Farouki reference does not disclose that the at least one person does not include the user of the computer, as recited in independent claim 1. Nor does Farouki disclose that the method is repeated on an intermittent basis.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes that Farouki discloses wherein the at least one person does not include the user of the computer ([0017] - [...] content displayed on the whiteboard. When the whiteboard 102 detects the interaction, the whiteboard may provide content and records 120 from the whiteboard records data store, and when the whiteboard 102 receives input from the one or more users 104, the input content may be stored in the whiteboard records 120 data store associated with the whiteboard 102 and [0044] - Additionally, when two or more users interact with the whiteboard concurrently, the whiteboard may determine access and permission settings for each of the concurrent users and may enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels. Further, the whiteboard may separate the whiteboard records such that users with more restrictive permission levels may have more limited access to records with corresponding permission levels and a user with a higher permission level may be able to access more records including the private data associated with the user). The examiner additionally notes the language cited in the rejection below for the limitation “acquiring an image of an area proximate to the computer using a camera in communication with a processor of the computer” [0042] - The whiteboard may identify and authenticate the one or more users based on a variety of identification techniques, including, but not limited to, input device recognition, facial and body recognition, finger and/or hand recognition, presence and motion detection, badge and/or QR code scanning, manual log-in credentials). The examiner respectfully notes that there could be one or more users in which only one is authenticated and/or in which more than one is authenticated. Thus, based on reasonably construction if one user is authenticated out of the one or more it can include data private data, see [0019]. Further, if one or more users is authenticated it can enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels, see [0044]. It is noted that these users may not be interacting as the system as the system may identify and authenticate the one or more users based facial and body recognition and presence and motion detection, see [0042]. Thus, Farouki reads on wherein at least one person does not include the user of the computer. Newly found reference of Sambamurthy is noted to teach the newly amended limitation of wherein the method is repeated at a frequency with a defined interval in addition it also concepts also teaching concepts of wherein the at least one person does not include the user of the computer ([0060] - In addition, the user images may also be obtained when there are changes in front of the display (e.g., a new user enters the area)). Therefore, the examiner respectfully notes the combination of Farouki in view of Sambamurthy disclose Claim 1 as currently amended. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive and/or moot.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 12-13, 16, 17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farouki (US 20140165152 A1) in view of Sambamurthy et al. (US 2019/0130081 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Farouki discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling the output of information from a computer, the method comprising:
acquiring an image of an area proximate to the computer using a camera in communication with a processor of the computer (FIG. 3 and FIG. 6 and [0028] - Some example identification and authentication techniques may include scanning a badge, QR code, or other scanning code employing a reader 304, facial and body or gesture recognition employing a video device 306, finger and hand 308 recognition, input device (stylus 310) recognition including direct input devices such as a stylus or pen and indirect input devices such as a client device 312 connected to the whiteboard 302 over a wired or wireless connection 320 and [0036] - User authentication module 624 may operate in conjunction with the operating system 605 or whiteboard access application 622 to enable identification and authentication of one or more users interacting with a whiteboard as discussed previously and [0042] - The whiteboard may identify and authenticate the one or more users based on a variety of identification techniques, including, but not limited to, input device recognition, facial and body recognition, finger and/or hand recognition, presence and motion detection, badge and/or QR code scanning, manual log-in credentials);
communicating the image to a computer-implemented image analysis system ([0036] - User authentication module 624 may operate in conjunction with the operating system 605 or whiteboard access application 622 to enable identification and authentication of one or more users interacting with a whiteboard as discussed previously);
by the image analysis system obtaining facial recognition information for at least one person in the image and determining security permissions for the at least one person based on the facial recognition information ([0042] - At operation 730, based on the identification and authentication of the one or more users interacting with the whiteboard, the whiteboard may determine permission settings for the user);
determining security permissions for information being output, or to be output, by the computer ([0017] - [...] content displayed on the whiteboard. When the whiteboard 102 detects the interaction, the whiteboard may provide content and records 120 from the whiteboard records data store, and when the whiteboard 102 receives input from the one or more users 104, the input content may be stored in the whiteboard records 120 data store associated with the whiteboard 102 and [0044] - Additionally, when two or more users interact with the whiteboard concurrently, the whiteboard may determine access and permission settings for each of the concurrent users and may enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels. Further, the whiteboard may separate the whiteboard records such that users with more restrictive permission levels may have more limited access to records with corresponding permission levels and a user with a higher permission level may be able to access more records including the private data associated with the user);
comparing the security permissions for the at least one person and for the information ([0044] - Additionally, when two or more users interact with the whiteboard concurrently, the whiteboard may determine access and permission settings for each of the concurrent users and may enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels. Further, the whiteboard may separate the whiteboard records such that users with more restrictive permission levels may have more limited access to records with corresponding permission levels and a user with a higher permission level may be able to access more records including the private data associated with the user);
controlling the output of the information by the computer based on the comparison of security permissions ([0017] - [...] content displayed on the whiteboard. When the whiteboard 102 detects the interaction, the whiteboard may provide content and records 120 from the whiteboard records data store, and when the whiteboard 102 receives input from the one or more users 104, the input content may be stored in the whiteboard records 120 data store associated with the whiteboard 102 and [0044] - Additionally, when two or more users interact with the whiteboard concurrently, the whiteboard may determine access and permission settings for each of the concurrent users and may enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels. Further, the whiteboard may separate the whiteboard records such that users with more restrictive permission levels may have more limited access to records with corresponding permission levels and a user with a higher permission level may be able to access more records including the private data associated with the user);
wherein the at least one person does not include the user of the computer ([0017] - [...] content displayed on the whiteboard. When the whiteboard 102 detects the interaction, the whiteboard may provide content and records 120 from the whiteboard records data store, and when the whiteboard 102 receives input from the one or more users 104, the input content may be stored in the whiteboard records 120 data store associated with the whiteboard 102 and [0044] - Additionally, when two or more users interact with the whiteboard concurrently, the whiteboard may determine access and permission settings for each of the concurrent users and may enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels. Further, the whiteboard may separate the whiteboard records such that users with more restrictive permission levels may have more limited access to records with corresponding permission levels and a user with a higher permission level may be able to access more records including the private data associated with the user).
However, in an analogous art, Farouki fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the method is repeated at a frequency with a defined interval.
However, in an analogous art, Sambamurthy teaches the concepts of [acquiring an image of an area proximate [...] controlling the output of information... [...] wherein the at least one person does not include the user of the computer] and further teaches wherein the method is repeated at a frequency with a defined interval (Fig. 21 and [0060] - In one embodiment, the images are taking every minute, although other intervals may also be configured. In addition, the user images may also be obtained when there are changes in front of the display (e.g., a new user enters the area) or when there is a large amount of data (e.g., beyond a threshold level of data per unit of time) being downloaded on the display. This guarantees that if a user is accessing a large amount of information, the user's image is captured and Claim 5 - wherein periodically maintaining the authentication of the user valid includes, analyzing user interactive input provided at the mobile device at predetermined intervals of time to identify biometric identity data of the user captured when the user is providing the interactive input; and verifying identity of the user operating the mobile device using the biometric identity data of the use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sambamurthy to the information and the security permissions of Farouki to include [acquiring an image of an area proximate [...] controlling the output of information... [...] wherein the at least one person does not include the user of the computer] and wherein the method is repeated at a frequency with a defined interval
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sambamurthy to Farouki to do so as it provides / allows improving security embedded in a presentation display (Sambamurthy, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 2;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki further discloses wherein the output of information is restricted due to the at least one person's security permissions being insufficient for the security permissions of the information ([0017] - [...] content displayed on the whiteboard. When the whiteboard 102 detects the interaction, the whiteboard may provide content and records 120 from the whiteboard records data store, and when the whiteboard 102 receives input from the one or more users 104, the input content may be stored in the whiteboard records 120 data store associated with the whiteboard 102 and [0044] - Additionally, when two or more users interact with the whiteboard concurrently, the whiteboard may determine access and permission settings for each of the concurrent users and may enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels. Further, the whiteboard may separate the whiteboard records such that users with more restrictive permission levels may have more limited access to records with corresponding permission levels and a user with a higher permission level may be able to access more records including the private data associated with the user).
Regarding Claim 4;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki further discloses wherein the information is output by being displayed on a screen ([0017] - [...] content displayed on the whiteboard. When the whiteboard 102 detects the interaction, the whiteboard may provide content and records 120 from the whiteboard records data store, and when the whiteboard 102 receives input from the one or more users 104, the input content may be stored in the whiteboard records 120 data store associated with the whiteboard 102 and [0044] - Additionally, when two or more users interact with the whiteboard concurrently, the whiteboard may determine access and permission settings for each of the concurrent users and may enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels. Further, the whiteboard may separate the whiteboard records such that users with more restrictive permission levels may have more limited access to records with corresponding permission levels and a user with a higher permission level may be able to access more records including the private data associated with the user).
Regarding Claim 12;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki further discloses wherein determining security permissions for the information being output comprises determining a classification of the information and determining permissions for that classification ([0023] - When the whiteboard 202 authenticates the user 204, the private whiteboard records 224 associated with the user 204 may be accessible over the whiteboard 202. Additionally, other whiteboard records 212 may also be accessible to the user 204 based on the permission level 214 of the user. For example, some records may be designated read-only based on a certain permission level, while other records may enable editing based on a detected permission level. In an example scenario, parental or administrative records may be available based on detection of a parental or administrative permission level. In another example, a whiteboard may be used in an academic setting. A professor or teacher may have full access to teacher appropriate whiteboard records, while a student may have more restricted permissions and may have access to a more limited student appropriate whiteboard records).
Regarding Claim 13;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 12.
Farouki further discloses wherein the classification is pre-determined, determined as part of the step of determining security permissions for the information, or determined based on the content of the information ([0023] - When the whiteboard 202 authenticates the user 204, the private whiteboard records 224 associated with the user 204 may be accessible over the whiteboard 202. Additionally, other whiteboard records 212 may also be accessible to the user 204 based on the permission level 214 of the user. For example, some records may be designated read-only based on a certain permission level, while other records may enable editing based on a detected permission level. In an example scenario, parental or administrative records may be available based on detection of a parental or administrative permission level. In another example, a whiteboard may be used in an academic setting. A professor or teacher may have full access to teacher appropriate whiteboard records, while a student may have more restricted permissions and may have access to a more limited student appropriate whiteboard records).
Regarding Claim 16;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 12.
Farouki further discloses wherein the classification is stored in a database, in association with the information, or in a file containing the information ([0023] - When the whiteboard 202 authenticates the user 204, the private whiteboard records 224 associated with the user 204 may be accessible over the whiteboard 202. Additionally, other whiteboard records 212 may also be accessible to the user 204 based on the permission level 214 of the user. For example, some records may be designated read-only based on a certain permission level, while other records may enable editing based on a detected permission level. In an example scenario, parental or administrative records may be available based on detection of a parental or administrative permission level. In another example, a whiteboard may be used in an academic setting. A professor or teacher may have full access to teacher appropriate whiteboard records, while a student may have more restricted permissions and may have access to a more limited student appropriate whiteboard records).
Regarding Claim 17;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki further discloses, wherein all steps are performed at the computer outputting the information (FIG. 6).
Regarding Claim(s) 22; claim(s) 22 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 1. Claim(s) 22 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 5-8, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farouki (US 20140165152 A1) in view of Sambamurthy et al. (US 2019/0130081 A1) in view of Dhondse et al. (US 2017/0243020 A1).
Regarding Claim 3;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki and Sambamurthy fail to explicitly disclose wherein the information and the security permissions for the information are obtained from a remote storage system.
However, in an analogous art, Dhondse teaches wherein the information and the security permissions for the information are obtained from a remote storage system (FIG. 2 – Security System and [0017] - The security system 202 may be implemented locally on the user device 206 or may be housed on a server which contains confidential data such as a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) server and [0030] - In exemplary embodiments, the security system 202 may utilize a GUI based apparatus to set up security privileges in a document or other secure data using a server such as an enterprise LDAP. The GUI would allow an individual to set up security on specific sensitive contents within a document or other data which pertains to a specific group or individual within an enterprise LDAP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dhondse to the information and the security permissions of Farouki and Sambamurthy to include wherein the information and the security permissions for the information are obtained from a remote storage system.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dhondse to Farouki and Sambamurthy to do so as it provides / allows secure sensitive data from potential prying eyes or intruders (Dhondse, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 5;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 4.
Farouki further discloses wherein the output is controlled by ...dependent on the comparison of security permissions ([0017] - [...] content displayed on the whiteboard. When the whiteboard 102 detects the interaction, the whiteboard may provide content and records 120 from the whiteboard records data store, and when the whiteboard 102 receives input from the one or more users 104, the input content may be stored in the whiteboard records 120 data store associated with the whiteboard 102 and [0044] - Additionally, when two or more users interact with the whiteboard concurrently, the whiteboard may determine access and permission settings for each of the concurrent users and may enable access based on the more restricted of the detected permission levels).
Farouki and Sambamurthy fail to explicitly disclose the output is controlled by modifying the appearance of at least part of the screen dependent on the comparison of security permissions.
However, in an analogous art, Dhondse teaches the output is controlled by modifying the appearance of at least part of the screen dependent on the comparison of security permissions ([0025] - Security measures can include but are not limited to blanking the entire screen, blanking only a portion of the confidential document, invoking a screen saver, or closing or minimizing the program displaying the confidential document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dhondse to the output of Farouki to include the output is controlled by modifying the appearance of at least part of the screen dependent on the comparison of security permissions
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dhondse to Farouki to do so as it provides / allows secure sensitive data from potential prying eyes or intruders (Dhondse, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 6;
Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse disclose the method to Claim 5.
Dhondse further teaches wherein the appearance of only a part of the screen where the information is being displayed is modified ([0025] - Security measures can include but are not limited to blanking the entire screen, blanking only a portion of the confidential document, invoking a screen saver, or closing or minimizing the program displaying the confidential document).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Dhondse to Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse, as per claim 5, above.
Regarding Claim 7;
Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse disclose the method to Claim 5.
Dhondse further teaches the appearance of areas in addition to the areas in which the information is being displayed are modified ([0025] - Security measures can include but are not limited to blanking the entire screen, blanking only a portion of the confidential document, invoking a screen saver, or closing or minimizing the program displaying the confidential document).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Dhondse to Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse, as per claim 5, above.
Regarding Claim 8;
Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse disclose the method to Claim 5.
Dhondse further teaches wherein the appearance is modified by blanking or blurring the relevant area of the screen ([0025] - Security measures can include but are not limited to blanking the entire screen, blanking only a portion of the confidential document, invoking a screen saver, or closing or minimizing the program displaying the confidential document).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Dhondse to Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse, as per claim 5, above.
Regarding Claim 18;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki and Sambamurthy fail to explicitly disclose wherein the computer is connected to at least one remote computer system via a network and at least one of the steps of the method is performed at the least one remote computer.
However, in an analogous art, Dhondse teaches wherein the computer is connected to at least one remote computer system via a network and at least one of the steps of the method is performed at the least one remote computer ([0025] - In exemplary embodiments, a user may access sensitive data (which by example may be a confidential document) via a user device 206. Before loading this confidential document, the security system will check the security profile of the document to see if it has a proximity-based security protocol in place. If a proximity protocol is in place, the security system will access certain types of sensors that supply proximity based sensor data to determine via the security module 204 and data analyzer 208 if the user device is within an appropriate boundary. If the user device is not within the appropriate boundary, then access to the confidential document is denied. Should the confidential document not have a security profile showing a proximity based requirement or if the user device is within an appropriate boundary according to the sensor data, the security system will then look to other types of sensors, according to the security profile, selected from a host of available sensors. The available sensors may include a camera that can employ facial recognition to determine if the user accessing the confidential document possesses the appropriate security clearance to access the confidential document. This facial recognition camera may also look to other individuals near the user device to determine if the other individuals possess security clearance to view the confidential documents. If the camera observes an individual that does not have the security clearance and is near by the user device, the security system will then invoke a security measure. Security measures can include but are not limited to blanking the entire screen, blanking only a portion of the confidential document, invoking a screen saver, or closing or minimizing the program displaying the confidential document)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dhondse to the method of Farouki and Sambamurthy to include wherein the computer is connected to at least one remote computer system via a network and at least one of the steps of the method is performed at the least one remote computer.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dhondse to Farouki and Sambamurthy to do so as it provides / allows secure sensitive data from potential prying eyes or intruders (Dhondse, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 19;
Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse disclose the method to Claim 18.
Dhondse further teaches wherein at least the step of determining security permissions for information is performed at the remote computer ([0025] - In exemplary embodiments, a user may access sensitive data (which by example may be a confidential document) via a user device 206. Before loading this confidential document, the security system will check the security profile of the document to see if it has a proximity-based security protocol in place. If a proximity protocol is in place, the security system will access certain types of sensors that supply proximity based sensor data to determine via the security module 204 and data analyzer 208 if the user device is within an appropriate boundary. If the user device is not within the appropriate boundary, then access to the confidential document is denied. Should the confidential document not have a security profile showing a proximity based requirement or if the user device is within an appropriate boundary according to the sensor data, the security system will then look to other types of sensors, according to the security profile, selected from a host of available sensors. The available sensors may include a camera that can employ facial recognition to determine if the user accessing the confidential document possesses the appropriate security clearance to access the confidential document. This facial recognition camera may also look to other individuals near the user device to determine if the other individuals possess security clearance to view the confidential documents. If the camera observes an individual that does not have the security clearance and is near by the user device, the security system will then invoke a security measure. Security measures can include but are not limited to blanking the entire screen, blanking only a portion of the confidential document, invoking a screen saver, or closing or minimizing the program displaying the confidential document).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Dhondse to Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse, as per claim 18, above,
Regarding Claim 20;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki and Sambamurthy fail to explicitly disclose wherein the step of determining security permissions for the at least one person based on the facial recognition information comprises transmitting the facial recognition information to a remote computer system.
However, in an analogous art, Dhondse teaches wherein the step of determining security permissions for the at least one person based on the facial recognition information comprises transmitting the facial recognition information to a remote computer system ([0016] - For example, a user device 206 such as a laptop may have an embedded camera housed inside the laptop frame which can serve as a sensor 210. Or the laptop could be wirelessly connected to a standalone webcam or other device, such as a mobile phone. The sensors 210 are in communication with the security system 202. For example, a company may have security cameras or motion sensors that may be connected to the security system 202 and this sensor data may be transmitted directly to the security system 202. In addition, based upon sensor data received by the security system 202, the security system 202 may access sensors 210 that are in proximity to the user device 206 and [0021] - In exemplary embodiments, the sensor data being received can be a host of data types including but not limited to motion sensor data, facial recognition sensor data, MAC Address data, GPS location sensor data, Bluetooth® sensor data, proximity sensor data, camera data, infrared sensor data and the like and [0017] - Additionally, the security system 202 includes a data analyzer 208 that is configured to receive and analyze data from a sensor module 212 within the sensors 210 to determine a host of information such as authentication of a user, the proximity of individuals besides the user, the location of the user device within a geographical area, the authentication of individuals other than the user, etc. and [0025] - In exemplary embodiments, a user may access sensitive data (which by example may be a confidential document) via a user device 206. Before loading this confidential document, the security system will check the security profile of the document to see if it has a proximity-based security protocol in place. If a proximity protocol is in place, the security system will access certain types of sensors that supply proximity based sensor data to determine via the security module 204 and data analyzer 208 if the user device is within an appropriate boundary. If the user device is not within the appropriate boundary, then access to the confidential document is denied. Should the confidential document not have a security profile showing a proximity based requirement or if the user device is within an appropriate boundary according to the sensor data, the security system will then look to other types of sensors, according to the security profile, selected from a host of available sensors. The available sensors may include a camera that can employ facial recognition to determine if the user accessing the confidential document possesses the appropriate security clearance to access the confidential document. This facial recognition camera may also look to other individuals near the user device to determine if the other individuals possess security clearance to view the confidential documents. If the camera observes an individual that does not have the security clearance and is near by the user device, the security system will then invoke a security measure. Security measures can include but are not limited to blanking the entire screen, blanking only a portion of the confidential document, invoking a screen saver, or closing or minimizing the program displaying the confidential document)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dhondse to the determining of security permissions of Farouki and Sambamurthy to include wherein the step of determining security permissions for the at least one person based on the facial recognition information comprises transmitting the facial recognition information to a remote computer system.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dhondse to Farouki and Sambamurthy to do so as it provides / allows secure sensitive data from potential prying eyes or intruders (Dhondse, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 21;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki and Sambamurthy fail to explicitly disclose wherein the image analysis system is located at a remote computer system.
However, in an analogous art, Dhondse teaches wherein the image analysis system is located at a remote computer system. ([0016] - For example, a user device 206 such as a laptop may have an embedded camera housed inside the laptop frame which can serve as a sensor 210. Or the laptop could be wirelessly connected to a standalone webcam or other device, such as a mobile phone. The sensors 210 are in communication with the security system 202. For example, a company may have security cameras or motion sensors that may be connected to the security system 202 and this sensor data may be transmitted directly to the security system 202. In addition, based upon sensor data received by the security system 202, the security system 202 may access sensors 210 that are in proximity to the user device 206 and [0017] - Additionally, the security system 202 includes a data analyzer 208 that is configured to receive and analyze data from a sensor module 212 within the sensors 210 to determine a host of information such as authentication of a user, the proximity of individuals besides the user, the location of the user device within a geographical area, the authentication of individuals other than the user, etc. and [0021] - In exemplary embodiments, the sensor data being received can be a host of data types including but not limited to motion sensor data, facial recognition sensor data, MAC Address data, GPS location sensor data, Bluetooth® sensor data, proximity sensor data, camera data, infrared sensor data and the like and [0025] - In exemplary embodiments, a user may access sensitive data (which by example may be a confidential document) via a user device 206. Before loading this confidential document, the security system will check the security profile of the document to see if it has a proximity-based security protocol in place. If a proximity protocol is in place, the security system will access certain types of sensors that supply proximity based sensor data to determine via the security module 204 and data analyzer 208 if the user device is within an appropriate boundary. If the user device is not within the appropriate boundary, then access to the confidential document is denied. Should the confidential document not have a security profile showing a proximity based requirement or if the user device is within an appropriate boundary according to the sensor data, the security system will then look to other types of sensors, according to the security profile, selected from a host of available sensors. The available sensors may include a camera that can employ facial recognition to determine if the user accessing the confidential document possesses the appropriate security clearance to access the confidential document. This facial recognition camera may also look to other individuals near the user device to determine if the other individuals possess security clearance to view the confidential documents. If the camera observes an individual that does not have the security clearance and is near by the user device, the security system will then invoke a security measure. Security measures can include but are not limited to blanking the entire screen, blanking only a portion of the confidential document, invoking a screen saver, or closing or minimizing the program displaying the confidential document)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dhondse to the method of Farouki and Sambamurthy to include wherein the image analysis system is located at a remote computer system.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dhondse to Farouki and Sambamurthy to do so as it provides / allows secure sensitive data from potential prying eyes or intruders (Dhondse, [0002]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farouki (US 20140165152 A1) in view of Sambamurthy et al. (US 2019/0130081 A1) and further in view of Buck (US 2014/0201844 A1).
Regarding Claim 9;
Farouki and Sambamurthy disclose the method to Claim 1.
Farouki and Sambamurthy fail to explicitly disclose wherein a warning is output that people have been identified by the system who do not have permission to view the information.
However, in an analogous art, Buck teaches wherein a warning is output that people have been identified by the system who do not have permission to view the information (FIG. 14 and [0120] - In another embodiment, the system may display a notification message on the screen (1445). The notification message may include text to indicate to the shoulder surfer that the user is aware of the spying. It should be appreciated that the system can implement a combination of operations or actions to help keep the user's information private (e.g., capture image of shoulder surfer and display notification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Buck to the method of Farouki and Sambamurthy to include wherein a warning is output that people have been identified by the system who do not have permission to view the information.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Buck to Farouki and Sambamurthy to do so as it provides / allows to help keep the information being shown on the device screen private (Buck, [0004]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farouki (US 20140165152 A1) in view of Sambamurthy et al. (US 2019/0130081 A1) and Dhondse et al. (US 2017/0243020 A1) and further in view of Buck (US 2014/0201844 A1).
Regarding Claim 10;
Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse disclose the method to Claim 5.
Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse fail to explicitly disclose wherein a warning is output to a user of the computer, wherein the warning modifies the appearance of the display.
However, in an analogous art, Buck teaches wherein a warning is output to a user of the computer, wherein the warning modifies the appearance of the display (FIG. 14 and [0120] - In another embodiment, the system may display a notification message on the screen (1445). The notification message may include text to indicate to the shoulder surfer that the user is aware of the spying. It should be appreciated that the system can implement a combination of operations or actions to help keep the user's information private (e.g., capture image of shoulder surfer and display notification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Buck to the output of Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse to include wherein a warning is output to a user of the computer, wherein the warning modifies the appearance of the display.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Buck to Farouki and Sambamurthy and Dhondse to do so as it provides / allows to help keep the information being shown on the device screen private (Buck, [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
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 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 KARI L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm (MDT).
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/KARI L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439