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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the amendment and argument field on 2 March 2026.
2. Claims 11-20 are newly added.
3. Claims 1-20 remain Pending and Rejected.
Examiner’s Note
4. Examiner respectfully invite applicant to discuss claim limitation.
Responses to the Argument
5. The applicant’s arguments filed on 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, the applicant has argued in substance:
Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, based on broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 1 state that it checks for use authority/rights/permission in order to connect between two devises. Combination of prior arts of record it teaches, the read-only authority function can sets media by using block device input output protocol, detecting the attribute of device route node is a USB mass storage device, according to the basic input output system setting. adjusted by way of read-only privilege function of the media under the current handle through the block using the device input output protocol setting, increasing USB permission setting of reading configuration, the advantage of which is that it can realize prevent basic input output system the process step to the server device transmits data to the USB mass storage device writing computer data. ensure the security of the computer information data. Please, see rejection below,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (CN publication No. CN105226472), hereinafter Tan and in view of Zhao et al. (CN Publication No. 110245527), hereinafter Zhao and in view of Wu (US Patent Publication no.20110246678).
Regarding claim 1:
Wu in view of Zhao does not explicitly suggest, A simulating interface system, assembled with an electronic device, however, in same field of endeavor Tan discloses this limitation (Tan, Abstract, page,4, Para.3(Last), comprising: an interface module connecting with an external electronic device and receiving connection signals from the external electronic device (Wu, Abstract, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of simulating interface of Wu in view of Zhao with the method of method of simulation disclosed in Tan to have authorized/secure connection, stated by Tan at para. Page 7, Para.1).
Wu in view Zhao does not explicitly suggest and a simulating module connecting with the interface module and comprising a simulating unit and a management unit, wherein the simulating unit is used to simulate a use authority of the electronic device, however, in same field of endeavor Tan discloses this limitation (Tan, page.6. Para.1);
Wu does not explicitly suggest, and the management unit adjusts the use authority to provide to the external electronic device based on the connection signals; however, in a same field of endeavor Zhao discloses this limitation (Zhao, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of simulating interface of Wu with the method of adjusting permission disclosed in Zhao to have changeable control authority, stated by Zhao at para. abstract.
Regarding claim 2:
wherein the connection signals comprise device information of the external electronic device and the management unit comprises a device permission list, the management unit compares the device information according to the device permission list, in order to open or restrict the use authority of the electronic device (Wu, ¶15).
Regarding claim 3:
wherein the use authority comprises functional permissions and/or specification permissions (Wu, ¶41).
Regarding claim 6:
wherein the interface module comprises a plurality of interface units each of which has a display interface unit an audio interface unit and a data transfer interface unit; (Wu, ¶6, 3).
Regarding claim 7:
wherein the plurality of interface units are selected from the group consisting of: USB, micro USB, DP, HDMI, DVI, and VGA (Wu, ¶8).
Regarding claim 8:
further comprising a connection module which is connected with the simulating module, wherein the connection module is configured to connect a connection interface of the electronic device (Wu, ¶9).
Regarding claim 9:
wherein the connection module is selected from the group consisting of: USB, micro USB, DP, HDMI, DVI, and VGA (Wu, ¶8).
Regarding claim 10:
wherein the simulating module is disposed in the electronic device and the interface module corresponds to a connection interface of the electronic device (Wu, abstract).
7. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Tan and Zhao and Miura et al. (CN Publication No. 1023779900), hereinafter Miura.
Regarding claim 4:
Wu in view of Tan and Zhao does not explicitly suggest, wherein the functional permissions comprise video signal inputs, video signal outputs, audio signal inputs, audio signal outputs, data inputs, and data outputs; however, in a same field of endeavor Zhao discloses this limitation Miura discloses this limitation (Miura, ¶11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of simulating interface of WU in view of Zhao and Tan with the method audio/video selection disclosed in Miura to have content protection, stated by Miura at para. 93.
Regarding claim 5:
Wu in view of Tan and Zhao does not explicitly suggest, wherein the specification permissions comprise video input specifications, video output specifications, audio input specifications, audio output specifications, upload data specifications, and download data specifications however, in a same field of endeavor Zhao discloses this limitation Miura discloses this limitation (Miura, ¶48).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Wu in view of Zhao and Miura applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 11:
wherein the simulating interface system is a built-in device of the electronic device (Wu, ¶13).
Regarding claim 12:
Wu does not explicitly suggest, wherein the electronic device connects with the simulating interface system for adjusting internal settings of the simulating interface system; however, in a same field of endeavor Zhao discloses this limitation (Zhao, abstract).
Regarding claim 13:
wherein the device permission list of the management unit is adjustable via the electronic device (Wu, ¶15).
Regarding claim 14:
wherein the electronic device is configured to provide different use authorities for different external electronic devices (Wu, ¶41).
Regarding claim 15:
wherein the display interface unit is connected with a video player, the audio interface unit is connected with audio equipment, and the data transfer interface unit is connected with hard drives (Wu, ¶6).
Regarding claim 16:
wherein reducing the video input specifications and the video output specifications comprises lowering image resolution (Wu, ¶15).
Regarding claim 17:
wherein reducing the audio input specifications and the audio output specifications comprises lowering sound quality (Wu, ¶43).
Regarding claim 18:
wherein reducing the upload data specifications and the download data specifications comprises limiting data transmission rate (WU, ¶8
Regarding claim 19:
wherein the electronic device is a desktop computer, a laptop computer, or a mobile phone (WU, ¶39).
Regarding claim 20:
wherein the external electronic device is a monitor, a music player, or a portable hard (Wu, ¶39).
Conclusion
8. 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (See form “PTO-892 Notice of reference cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONJUR RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3890.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Monjur Rahim/
Patent Examiner
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Art Unit: 2436; Phone: 571.270.3890
E-mail: monjur.rahim@uspto.gov
Fax: 571.270.4890
Prosecution Insights