DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 12/22/2025.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but focus solely on the newly amended subject matter, such as appearing in claim 1, where such arguments are moot based on the teachings of Patel, as presented below.
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, 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, 5-7, 10-14, 16-17, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0065840 (Jasleen) in view of US 2023/0069223 (Patel).
With regard to claim 1, Jasleen discloses a method performed by a controller for a computing device, comprising:
receiving sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the computing device (Jasleen: Figure 1);
identifying an authorized user of the computing device based on the received sensor data (Jasleen: Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0008] to [0010]);
detecting one or more objects of interest associated with the received sensor data, the one or more objects of interest being separate from the authorized user (Jasleen: Figure 3 and Paragraph [0008]);
classifying each object of interest of the one or more objects of interest based at least in part on the retrieved contact information (Jasleen: Figure 3 and Paragraph [0008]); and
controlling a display associated with the computing device based on the classification of each object of interest (Jasleen: Figure 3 and Paragraphs [0006]-[0007]. Jasleen provides for the detection of individuals via a camera. The system would at least determine the user of the system (authorized user) to identify “individuals other than the user,” where such individuals would be objects of interest. The individuals are then classified as collaborating individuals or unauthorized and/or spectating individuals. Such classification would use a machine learning algorithm, which would use some form of a database. Further, a contact list may be used (Jasleen: Paragraph [0038]).).
Jasleen fails to disclose, but Patel teaches retrieving contact information from an address book managed by a phone or email client configured for the authorized user or from an organizational directory provided by an organization to which the authorized user belongs (Patel: Paragraph [0086]. The use of third-party contact lists to establish trust between users was well-known in the art, as in Patel.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to retrieve the contact information from an address book at least managed by a phone client (where only one option from the list of two options is required to teach the instant claim, as a whole, due to the use of alternative language) to allow for better integration between applications used by a user, thus allowing a user to utilize information that they already have and update to establish trust rather than requiring that a user completely establish the white list from scratch.
With regard to claim 2, Jasleen discloses that the database stores object recognition data associated with one or more contacts (Jasleen: Paragraph [0038]. The algorithm and stored data are used to identify users as contacts or unauthorized users.).
With regard to claim 3, Jasleen discloses that the object recognition data includes one or more images or voice recordings associated with the one or more contacts (Jasleen: Paragraphs [0023] and [0025]. A camera would collect images while voice data may also be used. Note that the use of alternative language (“or”) provides that only one of the two options is required to teach the instant claim, as a whole.).
With regard to claim 5, Jasleen discloses that the classifying of each object of interest comprises: determining whether the object of interest matches any of the object recognition data stored in the database (Jasleen: Paragraph [0038] and [0008]. The machine learning model can match the data to contacts.).
With regard to claim 6, Jasleen discloses wherein the controlling of the display comprises: outputting a notification to the display responsive to determining that at least one object of interest of the one or more objects of interest does not match any of the object recognition data stored in the database (Jasleen: paragraphs [0038], [0008], and [0030]. The user may be notified.).
With regard to claim 7, Jasleen discloses determining a relationship between the authorized user and a first contact of the one or more contacts responsive to determining that the object of interest matches the object recognition data associated with the first contact, the object of interest being classified based at least in part on the relationship between the authorized user and the first contact (Jasleen: Paragraph [0038] and [0008]. The users are classified based on being a contact or not.).
With regard to claim 10, Jasleen discloses determining a type of content presented on the display, the object of interest further being classified based at least in part on the type of content presented on the display (Jasleen: Paragraph [0026]. Information on restrictions of the file can be used to determine if the other individual is unauthorized.).
With regard to claim 11, Jasleen discloses that the object of interest is classified as a trusted onlooker for the type of content presented on the display responsive to determining that the relationship between the authorized user and the first contact satisfies a set of criteria associated with type of content (Jasleen: Paragraph [0026]. Information on restrictions of the file can be used to determine if the other individual is unauthorized.).
With regard to claim 12, Jasleen discloses wherein the object of interest is classified as a nontrusted onlooker for the type of content presented on the display responsive to determining that the relationship between the authorized user and the first contact does not satisfy a set of criteria associated with the type of content (Jasleen: Paragraph [0008] and [0026]. Individuals that do not have a relationship with the user (are not contacts) would not be authorized for a secure file.).
With regard to claim 13, Jasleen discloses wherein the controlling of the display comprises: obfuscating the content presented on the display responsive to classifying at least one object of interest of the one or more objects of interest as a nontrusted onlooker for the type of content (Jasleen: Paragraph [0006]. A privacy screen may be applied.).
With regard to claims 14-17, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 10, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 23, Jasleen teaches that at least one object of interest of the one or more objects of interest is classified as a trusted onlooker for first content displayed on the display and classified as a nontrusted onlooker for second content displayed on the display, the controlling of the display comprising: refraining from obfuscating the first content; and obfuscating the second content (Jasleen: Paragraphs [0008] and [0037]. Jasleen identifies the sensitive information, and would take measures for obfuscating the sensitive information, where the sensitive information would be information that the onlooker is not trusted for and non-sensitive information would be information that the onlooker is trusted for. Without details that provides for the nature of the first content, such that some onlookers would be not trusted for the first content, determining that the first content is not sensitive, and thus all onlookers would be trusted for such content, would meet the instant claim language.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasleen in view of Patel, and further in view of US 2023/0388282 (Lin).
With regard to claim 8, Jasleen fails to disclose, but Lin teaches wherein the database further stores information indicating an organizational role or title associated with each contact of the one or more contacts, the relationship between the authorized user and the first contact being determined based at least in part on the organizational role or title associated with the first contact (Lin: Paragraph [0042]. Lin presents role based access control, where access rights are granted based on roles in an organization.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the relationship being determined based at least in part on the organizational role or title associated with the first contact to ensure that information would be kept secure from individuals who would not have an appropriate role to have access to the information, where such role based access authorization would simplify the granting of access rights as it would not need to be provided on a per-user basis.
With regard to claim 18, the instant claim is similar to claim 8, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasleen in view of Patel, and further in view of US 2011/0113488 (Schultz).
With regard to claim 9, Jasleen fails to teach, but Schultz teaches that the database further stores information indicating a history of communication between the authorized user and each contact of the one or more contacts, the relationship between the authorized user and the first contact being determined based at least in part on the history of communication between the authorized user and the first contact (Schultz: Paragraph [0068]. Contacts may be implicitly identified based on past communications.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a history of communication to determine a relationship between the user and a contact to allow collaborators to be identified without requiring explicit identification by a user, thus simplifying use of the system for the user.
With regard to claim 19, the instant claim is similar to claim 9, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasleen in view of Patel, and further in view of US 2023/0244191 (Honkote).
With regard to claim 21, Jasleen fails to teach, but Honkote teaches wherein the authorized user ins identified, the one or more objects are detected, and the one or more objects of interest are classified within a trusted execution environment (TEE) provided by an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) of the computing device (Honkote: Paragraphs [0023]-[0024]. The use of TEEs provided by ASICs were known in the art, where Honkote teaches the use of a TEE to securely process data collected by sensors.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a TEE provided by an ASIC to classify the objects of interest to provide secure processing of such data, which would, for example, ensure that privacy is maintained.
With regard to claim 22, Jasleen in view of Honkote teaches that the ASIC is separate from a central processor of the computing device; and the TEE prevents the sensor data from being accessed outside the TEE (Honkote: Paragraph [0032] and Figure 13. The CPU 1320 is separate from the ASIC 1300, where a TEE prevents external access of data.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444