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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first data" after presenting three options for what the second running environment is, as well as in the second option. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim under the first and third option if the second is not implemented. It is unclear if the remained of the claim is only implemented as part of the second option, and if not, what “the first data” might be referring back to under the first option. It is further unclear if the third option must be implemented with the second, and if not, what the first data not included in the virtual machine refers back to. This issue is repeated in claims 12 and 21.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 16, 18, 19, and 21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al., USPN 2014/0068755.
With regard to claims 1, 12, and 21, King discloses an access control method, including receiving, by an electronic device, a first instruction, wherein the first instruction is used to open a target application (0072, 0040), failing, by the electronic device, to authenticate the first instruction, or skipping, by the electronic device, authenticating the first instruction (0072, 0076, 0037, 0048, 0065, 0096), running, by the electronic device, the target application in a second running environment (0076) in response to the first instruction, wherein the second running environment is an independent running space isolated from a first running environment, wherein the first running environment and the second running environment each include a separate file system (0073-0074, 0076, 0025, 0060, 0064-0068), wherein the electronic device cannot access first data through the target application when running in the second running environment (0073-0074, 0040), and the first data is data accessible to the target application after the electronic device successfully authenticates the first instruction (0074), receiving, by the electronic device, authentication information (0086, 0081), in response to the authentication information being successfully authenticated, switching, by the electronic device, from the second running environment to the first running environment that can access the first data (0073-0076, 0093, 0086, 0081, 0041), and accessing, by the electronic device, the first data through the target application in response to the authentication information being successfully authenticated (0086, 0081, 0041).
With regard to claims 2 and 13, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses before the receiving, by the electronic device, the first instruction, the electronic device is in a lock screen state (0005, 0027, 0047-0048, 0076), and receiving, by the electronic device, the first instruction includes receiving, by the electronic device, the first instruction in the lock screen state (0096, 0005, 0027, 0047-0048, 0076).
With regard to claims 3 and 14, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further disclose the first instruction is a voice instruction (0100).
With regard to claims 5 and 16, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the authentication information includes voice data, fingerprint data, facial data, password data, or a user operation instruction (0086).
With regard to claims 7, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses accessing, by the electronic device, the first data through the target application in response to the authentication information being successfully authenticated includes running, by the electronic device, the target application in the first running environment in response to the authentication information being successfully authenticated, wherein the target application run in the first running environment can access the first data (0081, 0086, 0044, 0067, 0074).
With regard to claims 8 and 18, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses after running, by the electronic device, the target application in response to the first instruction, and before receiving, by the electronic device, the authentication information receiving, by the electronic device, a user operation for the target application, and generating, by the electronic device, second data of the target application based on the user operation (0077-0080, 0035, 0040).
With regard to claims 9 and 19, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses combining, by the electronic device, the second data with the first data in response to the authentication information being successfully authenticated (0035, 0040, 0053, 0081).
With regard to claim 11, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses the first instruction is received by the electronic device from another device different from the electronic device (0099-0100).
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.
Claims 4, 10, 15, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of examiner’s official notice.
With regard to claims 4 and 15, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses using a PIN to unlock the phone (0086) and using voice recognition (0100), but does not disclose using a voiceprint to unlock the phone. The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to use vocal biometrics to authenticate a user. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to allow the user of King to unlock his phone with a voiceprint for the motivation of improving the user’s ease of use of his phone and making the phone more accessible to people with limited use of their hands and fingers.
With regard to claims 10 and 20, King discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses that photos taken in the child share mode “may” be saved (0040), but does not disclose deleting, by the electronic device, the second data in response to the authentication information being successfully authenticated. The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to store temporary data during a session and deleting it at the end of that session. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to allow the user of King to delete data stored in child share mode after exiting that mode for the motivation of not cluttering up memory with drawings, game data, and photos that were only meant to occupy a child’s time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant quotes paragraph 67 of King as stating, “"[i]n many examples, restricting functionality or access does not include analyzing or changing Access Control Lists (ACLs), Access Control Entries (ACEs), or similar file-system access control metadata maintained by a file system." (Id.; emphasis added). The examiner would like to point out that while applicant underlined and made bold the words, “does not include”, the examiner would emphasize the words, “in many examples”. This indicates that not all examples, and that he is disclosing examples where a separate file system would be implemented. This is further supported in paragraph 76, as outlined above, that specifically state that the restricted execution mode can restrict access to the device to a file system of the mobile device, which is separate from a device file system, that is restricted (0073-0074)
References Cited
Tan et al., USPN 11,954,238, discloses a method including a restricted environment for a user that has not been fully authenticated (column 66 lines 4-19), wherein that environment has its own virtual file system (column 27 lines ).
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 JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights