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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Newly amended features, where relevant, necessitate new grounds of rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,550,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in the claims 1-13 and 16-20 of the instant application are anticipated by the limitation recited in the claims 1-7 and 9-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,550,885.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,019. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in the claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by the limitation recited in the claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,019.
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 1-4, 7-11, 14, 16 and 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelo et al. (US 2003/0105971 hereinafter Angelo) in view of Desai (US 2014/0331285) and Maruyama et al. (US 2020/0394326 hereinafter Maruyama) and further in view of Pruthi (US 9,071,618).
Regarding claim 1, Angelo discloses a system, comprising:
a location sensing device that associates a location to a computing device (Abstract, ¶ [0016]; i.e. GPS receiver);
the computing device (FIG. 1), comprising:
a processor (FIG. 1); and
memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor (FIG. 1), cause the computing device to:
determine, based on a geographic location received from the location sensing device and one of a plurality of security keys, whether to enable a user operating system or a false desktop system as a default mode of the computing device (Abstract, ¶ [0014], [0017]-[0018], [0020]; i.e. based on the location area in which the system is located, the system invokes one security mode associated with that particular location area, for example, work location or non-work location security mode, the access/security modes specify certain log on and/or access privileges, e.g. using security key, dependent on the location of the computer relative to a plurality of predetermined or programed location areas);
enable, during a login to the computing device and based on a received input of a first security key of the plurality of security keys, the default mode of the computing device (Abstract, ¶ [0020], [0030]; i.e. applying the security mode associated with that particular location area, work location or non-work location security mode, based on one or more input authenticity information such as software and/or hardware characteristics of the system when a user log on to the local or remote network).
Angelo does not explicitly disclose enable, during the login to the computing device and based on the received input of a second security key of the plurality of security keys, a first false desktop mode of the computing device, wherein the first false desktop mode comprises deleting a partition on a memory device after entry of the second security key as an alternate security measure; and enable, during login to the computing device and based on the received input of a third security key of the plurality of security keys, a second false desktop mode of the computing device comprising read-only access to the computing device, wherein each security key of the plurality of security keys is associated with a different false data set corresponding to a user associated with the first security key, and wherein each false data set is generated based on one or more template false data files.
However, Desai discloses enable, during the login to the computing device and based on the received input of a second security key of the plurality of security keys, a first false desktop mode of the computing device, wherein the first false desktop mode comprises deleting a partition on a memory device after entry of the second security key as an alternate security measure and wherein each security key of the plurality of security keys is associated with a different false data set corresponding to a user associated with the first security key (¶ [0072], [0096]-[0097], [0108]-[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Desai’s teaching into Angelo in order to control access to the unsecure and/or secure application based on a combination of context for the mobile device and the username or user roles (Desai, ¶ [0112]-[0114]).
Further Maruyama discloses wherein each false data set is generated based on one or more template false data files (¶ [0020], [0067]-[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Maruyama’s teaching into Angelo and Desai in order to utilize dummy information to allow the public display user’s information while maintaining the privacy of that information (Maruyama, ¶ [0002]-[0003]).
Furthermore Pruthi discloses enable, during login to the computing device and based on the received input of a third security key of the plurality of security keys, a second false desktop mode of the computing device comprising read-only access to the computing device (FIG. 5, 7, col. 8, lines 37-62, col. 10 line 27-col. 11, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Angelo, Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to provide effective, efficient, scalable and convenient ways of increasing the security of customer information and accounts by allowing customers having more control over the ways in which their information may be accessed (Pruthi, col. 1, lines 7-45).
Regarding claim 2, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: enable, during the login to the computing device and based on a received input of a third security key of the plurality of security keys, a non-default mode of the computing device (Desai, ¶ [0018], [0020], [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: configure, by a configuration module, the false desktop system to restrict access to specified files, data stores, applications, and storage drives of the computing device (Desai, ¶ [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: configure, by a configuration module, the false desktop system to restrict access to an external network communicatively coupled to the computing device (Desai, ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: configure, by a configuration module, the false desktop system to function as a read-only copy of the user operating system (Desai, ¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Angelo discloses a computing platform, comprising:
a processor (FIG. 1); and
memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor (FIG. 1), cause the computing platform to:
determine, based on a geographic location received from a location sensing device associated with the computing platform and based on use a received security key, whether to enable a user operating system or a false desktop system as a default mode of the computing platform (Abstract, ¶ [0014], [0017]-[0018], [0020]; i.e. based on the log on credential and the location area in which the system is located, the system invokes one security mode and/or operating mode associated with that particular location area, for example, work location or non-work location security mode);
enable, based on use of a first security key during a login to the computing platform and by a desktop management system, the default mode of the computing platform (Abstract, ¶ [0020], [0030]; i.e. applying the security mode associated with that particular location area, work location or non-work location security mode, based on one or more input authenticity information such as software and/or hardware characteristics of the system when a user log on to the local or remote network).
Angelo does not explicitly disclose enable, based on use of a second security key during the login to the computing platform and by the desktop management system, a first false desktop mode of the computing platform, wherein the first false desktop mode comprises deleting a partition on a memory device after entry of the second security key as an alternate security measure corresponding to a security key-dependent configuration of the false desktop system that is populated with false data associated with a user corresponding to the first security key; and enable, during login to the computing platform and based on the received input of a third security key of the plurality of security keys, a second false desktop mode of the computing device comprising read-only access to the computing platform, and wherein each false data set is generated based on one or more template false data files.
However, Desai discloses enable, based on use of a second security key during the login to the computing platform and by the desktop management system, a first false desktop mode of the computing platform, wherein the first false desktop mode comprises deleting a partition on a memory device after entry of the second security key as an alternate security measure corresponding to a security key-dependent configuration of the false desktop system that is populated with false data associated with a user corresponding to the first security key (¶ [0072], [0096]-[0097], [0108]-[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Desai’s teaching into Angelo in order to control access to the unsecure and/or secure application based on a combination of context for the mobile device and the username or user roles (Desai, ¶ [0112]-[0114]).
Maruyama discloses wherein each false data set is generated based on one or more template false data files (¶ [0020], [0067]-[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Maruyama’s teaching into Angelo and Desai in order to utilize dummy information to allow the public display user’s information while maintaining the privacy of that information (Maruyama, ¶ [0002]-[0003]).
Pruthi discloses enable, during login to the computing platform and based on the received input of a third security key of the plurality of security keys, a second false desktop mode of the computing device comprising read-only access to the computing platform (FIG. 5, 7, col. 8, lines 37-62, col. 10 line 27-col. 11, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Angelo, Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to provide effective, efficient, scalable and convenient ways of increasing the security of customer information and accounts by allowing customers having more control over the ways in which their information may be accessed (Pruthi, col. 1, lines 7-45).
Regarding claim 9, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 10, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 7 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 16, Angelo discloses a method, comprising:
determining, based on a geographic location of a computing platform and a use of a security key, whether to enable a user operating system or a false desktop system as a default mode of the computing platform (Abstract, ¶ [0014], [0017]-[0018], [0020]; i.e. based on the location area in which the system is located, the system invokes one security mode associated with that particular location area, for example, work location or non-work location security mode, the access/security modes specify certain log on and/or access privileges, e.g. using security key, dependent on the location of the computer relative to a plurality of predetermined or programed location areas);
enabling, during a login to the computing platform and by a desktop management system, the default mode of the computing platform based on a received input of a first security key (Abstract, ¶ [0020], [0030]; i.e. applying the security mode associated with that particular location area, work location or non-work location security mode, based on one or more input authenticity information such as software and/or hardware characteristics of the system when a user log on to the local or remote network).
Angelo does not explicitly disclose enabling, during the login to the computing platform and by the desktop management system, a first false desktop mode of the computing platform based on the received input of a second security key, wherein the first false desktop mode comprises deleting a partition on a memory device after entry of the second security key as a first security measure of a plurality of security measures that each correspond to a different security key and comprise a different configuration of the false desktop system; and enabling, during login to the computing platform and based on the received input of a third security key of the plurality of security keys, a second false desktop mode of the computing device comprising read-only access to the computing platform, wherein each different configuration is populated with false data associated with a user corresponding to the first security key; and wherein each false data set is generated based on one or more template false data files.
However, Desai discloses enabling, during the login to the computing platform and by the desktop management system, a first false desktop mode of the computing platform based on the received input of a second security key, wherein the first false desktop mode comprises deleting a partition on a memory device after entry of the second security key as a first security measure of a plurality of security measures that each correspond to a different security key and comprise a different configuration of the false desktop system, wherein each different configuration is populated with false data associated with a user corresponding to the first security key (¶ [0096]-[0097], [0108]-[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Desai’s teaching into Angelo in order to control access to the unsecure and/or secure application based on a combination of context for the mobile device and the username or user roles (Desai, ¶ [0112]-[0114]).
Maruyama discloses wherein each false data set is generated based on one or more template false data files (¶ [0020], [0067]-[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Maruyama’s teaching into Angelo and Desai in order to utilize dummy information to allow the public display user’s information while maintaining the privacy of that information (Maruyama, ¶ [0002]-[0003]).
Pruthi discloses enabling, during login to the computing platform and based on the received input of a third security key of the plurality of security keys, a second false desktop mode of the computing device comprising read-only access to the computing platform (FIG. 5, 7, col. 8, lines 37-62, col. 10 line 27-col. 11, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Angelo, Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to provide effective, efficient, scalable and convenient ways of increasing the security of customer information and accounts by allowing customers having more control over the ways in which their information may be accessed (Pruthi, col. 1, lines 7-45).
Regarding claim 18, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, 15, 17 and 19-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelo et al. (US 2003/0105971 hereinafter Angelo) in view of Desai (US 2014/0331285) and Maruyama et al. (US 2020/0394326 hereinafter Maruyama) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0170532 hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 5, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the system of claim 1.
Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: configure, by a configuration module, the false desktop system to disable specified ports associated with the computing device.
However, Lee discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: configure, by a configuration module, the false desktop system to disable specified ports associated with the computing device (¶ [0113], [0119], Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lee’s teaching into Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to automatically enable or disable certain functions of the electronic device depending on location or environment (Lee, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the system of claim 1.
Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: configure, by a configuration module, the false desktop system to erase specified content located in a plurality of storage drives of the computing device.
However, Lee discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: configure, by a configuration module, the false desktop system to erase specified content located in a plurality of storage drives of the computing device (¶ [0056]-[0057], Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lee’s teaching into Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to automatically enable or disable certain functions of the electronic device depending on location or environment (Lee, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 12, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 15, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the computing platform of claim 8.
Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing platform to: disable, based on a configuration of the false desktop system, a communication interface of the computing platform.
However, Lee discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing platform to: disable, based on a configuration of the false desktop system, a communication interface of the computing platform (¶ [0113], [0119], Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lee’s teaching into Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to automatically enable or disable certain functions of the electronic device depending on location or environment (Lee, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: enabling, during the login to the computing platform and by the desktop management system, a non-default mode of the computing platform based on a received input of a third security key (Desai, ¶ [0018], [0020], [0030]).
Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi does not explicitly disclose disabling, based on use of the third security key, at least one system driver for a port within the non-default mode of the computing platform.
However, Lee discloses disabling, based on use of the third security key, at least one system driver for a port within the non-default mode of the computing platform (¶ [0113], [0119], Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lee’s teaching into Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to automatically enable or disable certain functions of the electronic device depending on location or environment (Lee, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 19, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the method of claim 16.
Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi does not explicitly disclose configuring, by a configuration module of the desktop management system, the false desktop system to disable specified ports associated with the computing platform.
However, Lee discloses configuring, by a configuration module of the desktop management system, the false desktop system to disable specified ports associated with the computing platform (¶ [0113], [0119], Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lee’s teaching into Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to automatically enable or disable certain functions of the electronic device depending on location or environment (Lee, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 20, Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi discloses the method of claim 16.
Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi does not explicitly disclose configuring, by a configuration module of the desktop management system, the false desktop system to erase specified content located in a plurality of storage drives of the computing platform.
However, Lee discloses configuring, by a configuration module of the desktop management system, the false desktop system to erase specified content located in a plurality of storage drives of the computing platform (¶ [0056]-[0057], Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lee’s teaching into Angelo in view of Desai, Maruyama and Pruthi in order to automatically enable or disable certain functions of the electronic device depending on location or environment (Lee, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI D NGUY whose telephone number is (571)270-7311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/C.D.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435