DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is response to communication: response to amendments/arguments filed on 10/09/2025.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 2, 10, and 18 have been cancelled.
No new IDS has been received for this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See below.
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, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasleen et al. US Patent Applications Publication 2022/0171875 (Jasleen), in view of Kusens et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0193772 (Kusens), and further in view of Lopes US Patent No. 6,189,105 (Lopes).
As per claim 1, Jasleen teaches a method comprising: identifying, by a computer system having at least one processor and a memory, a registered user physically proximate to the computer system based on signals from sensors of the computer system, the sensors including at least one visual sensor and at least one non-visual sensor (abstract, paragraph 5, paragraph 12, and throughout with sensors determining proximity of users; users may be registered on white list; see different types of sensors such as in paragraph 25-30); in response to identifying the registered user, operating the computer system at a first privacy level in which private content is enabled for display and audio output is enabled (paragraph 23 and 40 wherein if user is in safe environment, no security profile is implemented or system refrains from taking action); identifying, by the computer system, a potential privacy threat physically located proximate to the computer system based on the signals from the sensors, wherein the potential privacy threat is separate from the registered user (abstract, paragraph 8, and throughout, wherein unauthorized individual or device is detected in close proximity); and in response to identifying the potential privacy threat, operating the computer system at a second privacy level different from the first privacy level, the second privacy level including muting an audio signal being produced by the computer system (paragraph 8, 40, and throughout with muting speakers, minimizing windows, etc).
Jasleen teaches the sensors including at least one visual sensor and at least one non-visual sensor (Jasleen paragraphs 25-30 with cameras and microphones, temperature, emf, etc), but does not explicitly teach non-visual sensors selected from the group consisting of ultrasound, wifi doppler, ultra-wideband UWB, and RF Radar. However, such limitations would have been obvious. Technologies such as ultrasound, wifi doppler, uwb, and RF radar to detect the presence of other users/devices is notoriously well known in the art. Jasleen already teaches utilizing sensors including Wifi (paragraph 29) and RF signals (paragraph 40). However, for a more clear example, see Kusens (paragraph 27 with detecting presence/proximity of users utilizing sensors; see paragraph 39 with signals including ultrasound).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kusens with Jasleen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide more security (paragraph 2 of Kusens).
Although the Jasleen combination teaches a second privacy level including preventing content from being displayed (see paragraph 8 and throughout with privacy screen or minimizing windows), the system does not explicitly teach suspending an application executing on the computer system. This would have been obvious, if not inherent, over Jasleen. The act of minimizing the window may be interpreted as suspending an application. However, for a further teaching on suspending applications, see Lopes (col. 4 lines 22-51 wherein an application is prevented from operating based on user proximity)
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Jasleen combination with Lopes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to increase security to prevent unauthorized access (col. 3 lines 14-16).
As per claim 3, the Jasleen combination teaches wherein the potential privacy threat includes at least one of a non-registered user onlooker viewing a display of the computer system, a non-registered user listener listening to the audio produced by the computer system, a device capturing images of the display or a device capturing the audio produced by the computer system (Jasleen paragraph 8 with unauthorized user in close proximity and video recording device nearby).
As per claim 4, the Jasleen combination teaches wherein the signals from the sensors include video signals, and identifying the potential privacy threat includes: identifying, by the computer system, an object of interest in a scene represented by the video signals, and in response, determining, by the computer system, that the object of interest is a potential privacy threat (Jasleen paragraph 26 with sensors including camera collecting video signals to determine presence of unauthorized individuals; see paragraph 8 with detecting that video recording devices are in close proximity).
As per claim 5, the Jasleen combination teaches wherein the signals from the sensors include audio signals, and identifying the potential privacy threat includes: identifying, by the computer system, a speaker other than the registered user as the potential privacy threat based on the audio signals (Jasleen paragraph 41 and throughout with monitoring audio to determine individuals)
As per claim 6, the Jasleen combination teaches wherein the second privacy level includes one or more privacy restrictions that are not included in the first privacy level (Jasleen paragraph 10 wherein applying no security profile or a lax profile; see pargarph 8 wherein another privacy level may including muting audio).
As per claim 7, the Jasleen combination teaches wherein the one or more privacy restrictions include locking the computer system or preventing private content from beign displayed on the display of the computer (Jasleen paragraph 8 with privacy screen, minimizing windows, etc).
As per claim 8, the Jasleen combination teaches wherein operating the computer system at the second privacy level includes at least one of notifying the registered user of the potential privacy threat, or notifying an administrator of the potential privacy threat (paragraph 8 and throughout with notifying a user)
Claim 9 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 7 above.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 8 above.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
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 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 JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. 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).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495