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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 09/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, 10, 14, 18, and 20 under 102(a)2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hu et al. (CN 210606054 U).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (CN 210606054 U).
Regarding claim 1, Hu et al. teach An electronic device ([0044] The mobile terminal 2 includes a personal computer) comprising:
a display embedded in a user accessible surface of the electronic device ([0045] The mobile terminal 2 includes a Wi-Fi receiving unit 21, a Wi-Fi ranging unit 22, a display unit 23) ;
a communications subsystem comprising an interface 0045] The mobile terminal 2 includes a Wi-Fi receiving unit 21) that enables the electronic device to communicatively connect via a wireless connection to a second electronic device ([0046] The Wi-Fi receiving unit 21 is used to receive the Wi-Fi signal transmitted by the Wi-Fi module 12), the wireless connection comprising a short range wireless connection ([0046] Wi-Fi signal);
a memory (Note: inherent in a personal computer); and
a processor ([0044] The mobile terminal 2 includes a personal computer) communicatively coupled to the display, the communications subsystem, and the memory ([0045] The mobile terminal 2 includes a Wi-Fi receiving unit 21, a Wi-Fi ranging unit 22, a display unit 23), which is configured to cause the electronic device to:
in response to one or more preset triggering criteria being met ([0051] infers the distance between the anti-loss device 1 and the mobile phone and the location of the anti-loss device 1 based on the strength of the Wi-Fi signal. When the distance exceeds the safe distance threshold), activate theft mitigation measures comprising transmitting, to the second electronic device via the wireless connection, at least one control signal ([0051] the mobile phone sends an alarm signal to the Wi-Fi module 12) that triggers the second electronic device to perform at least one of:
locking a second device screen of the second electronic device; and
emitting an alarm tone ([0051] After receiving the alarm signal, the Wi-Fi module 12 controls the alarm mechanism 13 to light up and sound).
Regarding claim 2, Hu et al. teach The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the wireless connection is achieved using at least one short-range communications protocol from a group comprising: Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi ([0051] The mobile phone receives the Wi-Fi signal) , or near field communication.
Regarding claim 10, Hu et al. teach A method comprising:
detecting, by a processor of an electronic device ([0044] The mobile terminal 2 includes a personal computer) that is communicatively connected via a short range wireless connection to a second electronic device ([0046] The Wi-Fi receiving unit 21 is used to receive the Wi-Fi signal transmitted by the Wi-Fi module 12), a trigger condition corresponding to a potential theft of the connected second electronic device ([0051] The alarm unit 25 is used to sound an alarm when the anti-loss device 1 and the mobile terminal 2 are more than a certain distance apart);
in response to one or more preset triggering criteria being met ([0051] infers the distance between the anti-loss device 1 and the mobile phone and the location of the anti-loss device 1 based on the strength of the Wi-Fi signal. When the distance exceeds the safe distance threshold), activating theft mitigation measures comprising transmitting, to the second electronic device via the wireless connection, at least one control signal ([0051] the mobile phone sends an alarm signal to the Wi-Fi module 12) that triggers the second electronic device to perform at least one of:
locking a second device screen of the second electronic device; and
emitting an alarm tone ([0051] After receiving the alarm signal, the Wi-Fi module 12 controls the alarm mechanism 13 to light up and sound).
Regarding claim 18, Hu et al. teach A computer program product ([0044] The mobile terminal 2 includes a personal computer) comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions (Note: inherent in a personal computer) that when executed by a processor of an electronic device that comprises an interface ([0045] The mobile terminal 2 includes a Wi-Fi receiving unit 21) that enables the electronic device to communicatively connect via a wireless connection to a second electronic device ([0046] The Wi-Fi receiving unit 21 is used to receive the Wi-Fi signal transmitted by the Wi-Fi module 12), configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising:
detecting, by a processor of an electronic device that is communicatively connected via a short range wireless connection to a second electronic device ([0046] The Wi-Fi receiving unit 21 is used to receive the Wi-Fi signal transmitted by the Wi-Fi module 12) , a trigger condition corresponding to a potential theft of the connected second electronic device ([0051] The alarm unit 25 is used to sound an alarm when the anti-loss device 1 and the mobile terminal 2 are more than a certain distance apart);;
in response to one or more preset triggering criteria being met ([0051] infers the distance between the anti-loss device 1 and the mobile phone and the location of the anti-loss device 1 based on the strength of the Wi-Fi signal. When the distance exceeds the safe distance threshold), activate theft mitigation measures comprising transmitting, to the second electronic device via the wireless connection, at least one control signal ([0051] the mobile phone sends an alarm signal to the Wi-Fi module 12) that triggers the second electronic device to perform at least one of:
locking a second device screen of the second electronic device; and
emitting an alarm tone ([0051] After receiving the alarm signal, the Wi-Fi module 12 controls the alarm mechanism 13 to light up and sound).
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.
Claims 3, 11-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet al. in view of MOUSTAFA et al. (US 20260099575 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hu et al. teach The electronic device of claim 1, wherein: the one or more preset triggering criteria are associated with a potential theft of the second electronic device (Hu [0051] When the distance exceeds the safe distance threshold); but do not teach
to perform the theft mitigation measures, the processor is further configured to cause the electronic device to generate and transmit a notification to a law enforcement reporting system to report the potential theft of the second electronic device to authorities.
In a similar endeavor, MOUSTAFA et al. teach
to perform the mitigation measures, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the electronic device to generate and transmit a notification to a law enforcement reporting system to report the potential theft of the second electronic device to authorities (MOUSTAFA [0040] the UE 110 is identified as lost or stolen with the anti-theft service... the anti-theft service may then access the image(s) of the unauthorized user. These image(s) may then be transferred to the authorized user to attempt to identify the unauthorized user. The authorized user may also send these images to other entities such as law enforcement if the UE 110 is stolen) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Huet al. by incorporating MOUSTAFA et al. to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have helped the law authorities to identify the thief.
Regarding claim 11, Hu et al. teach The method of claim 10, further comprising:
generating a notification indicating a potential theft of the second electronic device (Hu [0050] The alarm unit 25 is used to sound an alarm when the anti-loss device 1 and the mobile terminal 2 are more than a certain distance apart.); but do not teach
transmitting said notification to a law enforcement reporting system to report the potential theft of the second electronic device to authorities.
In a similar endeavor, MOUSTAFA et al. teach
transmit a notification to a law enforcement reporting system to report the potential theft of the second electronic device to authorities (MOUSTAFA [0040] the UE 110 is identified as lost or stolen with the anti-theft service... the anti-theft service may then access the image(s) of the unauthorized user. These image(s) may then be transferred to the authorized user to attempt to identify the unauthorized user. The authorized user may also send these images to other entities such as law enforcement if the UE 110 is stolen) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Huet al. by incorporating MOUSTAFA et al. to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have helped the law authorities to identify the thief.
Regarding claim 12, Hu et al. teach The method of claim 10, but do not teach
wherein:
the control signal further triggers the second electronic device to activate input devices of the second electronic device to capture one or both of audio and visual data of device surroundings, including persons in possession of or in proximity to the second electronic device; and
the method further comprises transmitting said data to authorities.
In a similar endeavor, MOUSTAFA et al. teach
the control signal further triggers the second electronic device (MOUSTAFA [0041] the authorized user will identify the UE 110 as lost or stolen using a different device) to activate input devices of the second electronic device to capture one or both of audio and visual data of device surroundings, including persons in possession of or in proximity to the second electronic device (MOUSTAFA [0040] the anti-theft service may then access the image(s) of the unauthorized user, MOUSTAFA [0045] the UE 110 may be configured to gather additional information when the UE 110 has been notified that it has been identified as lost or stolen. For example, the UE 110 may collect additional information such as audio (of the suspicious user, ambient audio, etc., fingerprints, ambient atmospheric pressure, etc.) device ; and
the method further comprises transmitting said data to authorities (MOUSTAFA [0040] the UE 110 is identified as lost or stolen with the anti-theft service... the anti-theft service may then access the image(s) of the unauthorized user. These image(s) may then be transferred to the authorized user to attempt to identify the unauthorized user. The authorized user may also send these images to other entities such as law enforcement if the UE 110 is stolen) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hu et al. by incorporating MOUSTAFA et al. to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have helped the law authorities to identify the thief.
Regarding claim 19, Hu et al. teach The computer program product of claim 18, further comprising program instructions for:
generating a notification indicating a potential theft of the second electronic device (Hu [0050] The alarm unit 25 is used to sound an alarm when the anti-loss device 1 and the mobile terminal 2 are more than a certain distance apart.); but do not teach
transmitting said notification to a law enforcement reporting system to report the potential theft of the second electronic device to authorities.
In a similar endeavor, MOUSTAFA et al. teach
transmitting a notification to a law enforcement reporting system to report the potential theft of the second electronic device to authorities (MOUSTAFA [0040] the UE 110 is identified as lost or stolen with the anti-theft service... the anti-theft service may then access the image(s) of the unauthorized user. These image(s) may then be transferred to the authorized user to attempt to identify the unauthorized user. The authorized user may also send these images to other entities such as law enforcement if the UE 110 is stolen) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Huet al. by incorporating MOUSTAFA et al. to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have helped the law authorities to identify the thief.
Claim 4-5, 14, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet al. in view of Yin et al. (US20240054208 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Hu et al. teach The electronic device of claim 1, but do not teach
wherein the preset triggering criteria comprise manual depression of at least one of:
an actuator of the electronic device; or
a selectable icon within a graphical user interface presented on the screen of the display.
In similar endeavor, Yin et al. teach
wherein the preset triggering criteria comprise manual depression of at least one of:
an actuator of the electronic device; or
a selectable icon within a graphical user interface presented on the screen of the display (Yin [0078] The user may perform an operation of tapping Lost mode 805... After completing setting, the user may tap the OK option 809. After detecting that the user taps the OK option 809, the mobile phone 2 may send, to the cloud server, a request for setting the mobile phone 1 to the lost mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hu et al. by incorporating Yin et a. pressing of an icon to arrive at the invention
The motivation of doing so would have set the lost phone to lost mode.
Regarding claim 5, Hu et al. teach The electronic device of claim 1, but do not teach
wherein to perform the theft mitigation measures, the processor is further configured to cause the electronic device to:
transmit instructions via the wireless connection to trigger the second electronic device to record and transmit its global positioning system (GPS) location to at least one of the electronic device and cloud storage accessible to the second electronic device.
In similar endeavor, Yin et al. teach
wherein to perform the mitigation measures the at least one processor is further configured to cause the electronic device to:
transmit instructions via the wireless connection to trigger the second electronic device to record and transmit its global positioning system (GPS) location to at least one of the electronic device (Yin [0075] the user may tap the Find My Phone option 703. After detecting the operation, the mobile phone may locate the mobile phone 1, and display, in the Find Device interface 701, a map 704 in which a specific location of the mobile phone 1 is marked (as shown in FIG. 5D(2))) and cloud storage accessible to the second electronic device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hu et al. by incorporating Yin et a. localization to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have localized the lost phone.
Regarding claim 14, Hu et al. teach The method of claim 10, but do not teach
further comprising:
triggering, by the at least one control signal, the second electronic device to record and report its global positioning system (GPS) location, wherein the second electronic device is remotely configured to transmit said location to at least one of the electronic device, cloud storage accessible to the second electronic device; and one or more predetermined electronic devices registered to acquaintances of a user of the second electronic device.
In a similar endeavor, Yin et al. teach
triggering, by the at least one control signal, the second electronic device to record and report its global positioning system (GPS) location, wherein the second electronic device is remotely configured to transmit said location to at least one of the electronic device ([0075] the user may tap the Find My Phone option 703. After detecting the operation, the mobile phone may locate the mobile phone 1, and display, in the Find Device interface 701, a map 704 in which a specific location of the mobile phone 1 is marked (as shown in FIG. 5D(2))), cloud storage accessible to the second electronic device; and one or more predetermined electronic devices registered to acquaintances of a user of the second device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hu et al. by incorporating Yin et a. localization to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have localized the lost phone.
Regarding claim 20, Hu et al. teach the computer program product of claim 18, but do not teach further comprising program instructions for:
triggering, by the at least one control signal, the second electronic device to record and report its global positioning system (GPS) location, wherein the second electronic device is remotely configured to transmit said location to one or more predetermined electronic devices registered to acquaintances of a user of the second electronic device’
In a similar endeavor, Yin et al. teach
triggering, by the at least one control signal, the second electronic device to record and report its global positioning system (GPS) location, wherein the second electronic device is remotely configured to transmit said location to one or more predetermined electronic devices registered to acquaintances of a user of the second device ([0075] the user may tap the Find My Phone option 703. After detecting the operation, the mobile phone may locate the mobile phone 1, and display, in the Find Device interface 701, a map 704 in which a specific location of the mobile phone 1 is marked (as shown in FIG. 5D(2)))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hu et al. by incorporating Yin et al. localization to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have localized the lost phone..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 13, and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Hu et al. teach the electronic device of claim 5, but fail to teach
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic device to perform at least one of:
generate and automatically upload information related to a potential theft of the second electronic device to previously designated social media accounts directly accessible via the second electronic device; and
disable second electronic device access to said previously designated social media accounts that are directly accessible via the second electronic device.
Regarding claim 7, Hu et al. teach the electronic device of claim 1, but fail to teach
wherein the one or more preset triggering criteria comprise a separation distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device exceeding a first pre-established threshold distance, and wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic device to: determine whether the separation distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device has exceeded the first pre-established threshold distance representing an expected operating range that is within a limit of an effective range of the short range wireless connection directly between the two electronic device and the second electronic device.
Regarding claim 8, Hu et al. fail to teach the electronic device of claim 7,
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic device to: in response to the separation distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device exceeding the first pre-established threshold distance:
determine whether the separation distance exceeds a second pre-established threshold distance representing the limit of the effective range; and
in response to the separation distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device not exceeding the second pre-established threshold distance, generate and transmit to the second electronic device via a direct the short range wireless connection, a control signal that prompts the second electronic device to implement preprogrammed theft mitigation measures.
Regarding claim 9, Hu et al. fail to teach the electronic device of claim 8,
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the electronic device to: in response to the separation distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device exceeding the second pre- established threshold distance, generate and transmit to the second electronic device, via a cellular wireless network to which the first electronic device and the second electronic device are communicatively connected, a control signal that prompts the second electronic device to implement preprogrammed theft mitigation measures.
Regarding claim 13, Hu et al. teach the electronic device of claim 10, but fail to teach
further comprising performing at least one of
:generating and automatically uploading information related to a potential theft of the second electronic device to previously designated social media accounts directly accessible via the second electronic device; and
disabling second electronic device access to said previously designated social media accounts that are directly accessible via the second electronic device, the disabling being triggered by the at least one control signal transmitted to the second electronic device.
Regarding claim 15, Hu et al. teach the electronic device of claim 10, but fail to teach
further comprising:
detecting that a distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device has exceeded a pre-established threshold distance while still within an effective range of the short range wireless connection; and
in response to the distance exceeding the pre-established threshold distance, transmitting, the at least one control signal that prompts the second electronic device to autonomously implement a series of preprogrammed theft mitigation measures.
Regarding claim 16, Hu et al. teach the electronic device of claim 10, but fail to teach
, further comprising:
determining whether a distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device has exceeded a first pre-established threshold distance representing an expected operating range and a second pre-established threshold representing a limit of an effective range of the short range wireless connection directly between the two electronic devices;
in response to the distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device exceeding the first pre-established threshold but not the second pre-established threshold, generating and transmitting to the second electronic device via a direct short-range wireless connection, a control signal that prompts the second electronic device to implement preprogrammed theft mitigation measures; and
in response to the distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device exceeding the second pre-established threshold, generating and transmitting to the second electronic device, via a cellular wireless network to which the first electronic device and the second electronic device are communicatively connected, a control signal that prompts the second electronic device to implement preprogrammed theft mitigation measures.
Regarding claim 17, Hu et al. teach the electronic device of claim 10, but fail to teach
wherein activating theft mitigation measures comprises:
generating and outputting a notification of a potential theft event on the display of the first electronic device; and
receiving a user selection of a selectable icon within a graphical user interface presented on the display, the selection of the selectable icon activating device theft notification and response features of the first electronic device and the second electronic device.
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 SAID M ELNOUBI whose telephone number is (571)272-9732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM to 6:00PM 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/SAID M ELNOUBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
