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 . This Office action is based on the communications filed April 23, 2026. Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 13, and 15 – 20 are currently pending and considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments beginning on page 9 of the Remarks. The claim language requires “the at least one predetermined criterion comprises a usage of the mobile device for a purpose that relates to an activity of an employee that is associated with a commercial entity,” emphasis added by the Examiner. The predetermined criterion (see at least, "In one embodiment, the device administrator module further disables features on device 310 on receiving message 320. For example, message 320 may include the features to be disabled on the device in one embodiment. In other embodiments, the entering into a controlled area may cause a default set of features to be disabled. As described below, such features may continue to be disabled until a non-exclusion zone signal is received without receipt of any exclusion zone signal," Mukherjee [0051], "The device may further include triggers for an enforcement module on the device. Once an exclusion zone signal is detected on the device, the triggers may cause the enforcement module to limit the functionality of the device," Mukherjee [0052], Mukherjee FIG. 3) comprises a usage of the mobile device (see at least, “In accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure, a user wants to prevent sensitive material at a talk she is giving to her colleagues from being leaked. Pictures from her previous talk were leaked online. In this regard, she does not want her colleagues to intentionally or unintentionally reveal the materials in her talk. An intentional leak may include, for example, pictures taken of her slides or video taken of her speech. An unintentional leak may include, for example, a phone call occurring within the vicinity of the meeting in which the presenter's voice can be overheard by others," Mukherjee [0016], "Thus, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, methods and systems are provided in which sensitive information within a controlled area may be prevented from being leaked," Mukherjee [0017]) this is for a purpose that relates to an activity of an employee that is associated with a commercial entity, i.e., “colleagues to intentionally or unintentionally reveal the materials in her talk,” “a phone call occurring within the vicinity of the meeting in which the presenter's voice can be overheard by others," Mukherjee [0016], “the company or entity that controls the secure location," Mukherjee [0019]. This is also clear when read in context of paragraph [0041], “In a further embodiment, a lab exclusion zone may allow audio functionality to allow workers to use a device as a telephone, but may restrict camera functionality to prevent pictures of prototypes,” [0041], and the background which states “Leaks of valuable information have become a problem for companies and organizations. Such leaks may provide competitors or the public with information about upcoming produce releases, business strategy, marketing campaigns, or other similar confidential information,” [0002]. Therefore, it is clear that the leaks are not from “competitors or the public” but related to “workers” of “the company or entity that controls the secure location," Mukherjee [0019].
The Examiner also respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument on page 11. Mukherjee teaches “Exclusion zones may be temporary, such as a board room during a board meeting, or may be permanent. For example, a lab within the controlled area 110 may be a permanent exclusion zone. In this case, any device entering such a lab area must be a compliant device with a device administrator module 130 that allows for functionality on the device, such as recording functionality, to be disabled," Mukherjee [0034], "In the embodiment of FIG. 2, computing device 210 authenticates with the system administrator 140, as shown through authentication 220. Such authentication may be automatic. For example, if computing device includes a device administrator module 130, this module may contain credentials and software for the automatic authentication of the computing device 210 with system administrator module 140. In other embodiments, credentials may need to be entered. For example, if the administrator module 140 is accessed through a web interface, a username and password may be needed. Other options for authentication are possible," Mukherjee [0039], emphasis added by the Examiner.) Again when read in context of paragraph [0041], “In a further embodiment, a lab exclusion zone may allow audio functionality to allow workers to use a device as a telephone, but may restrict camera functionality to prevent pictures of prototypes,” [0041], it is clear that the access card messages includes credentials for authentication, username and password, indicating that the workers are accessing the lab.
It is also noted that the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the statement that “Cambridge fails to remedy the deficiencies” as alleged by Applicant. The analogous prior art Cambridge is also concerned with “Other security considerations within security ecosystem,” [0060] including “employers' desire to protect children or employees from undesirable content, such as pornography, adware, spyware, age-inappropriate content, advocacy for certain political, religious, or social movements, or forums for discussing illegal or dangerous activities, by way of nonlimiting example,” [0060] and teaches that an area for concern is “in a computer lab at a workplace, surrounded by other employees who may also have smart devices or virtual assistants,” [0110], where “devices may be listening,” [0110].
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 – 4, 6 – 13, and 15 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 2018/0176366 A1), hereinafter Mukherjee, in view of Cambridge (US 2021/0392183 A1), hereinafter Cambridge.
Claim 1: Mukherjee discloses a method for restricting a forwarding of voice data received by a mobile device, the method being implemented by at least one processor that is associated with the mobile device (see at least, “The present disclosure further provides a computer readable medium for storing program code, which, when executed on a processor of a computing device are configured
to disable one or more features on the computing device,” Mukherjee [0013], “In accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure, a user wants to prevent sensitive material at a talk she is giving to her colleagues from being leaked. Pictures from her previous talk were leaked online. In this regard, she does not want her colleagues to intentionally or unintentionally reveal the materials in her talk. An intentional leak may include, for example, pictures taken of her slides or video taken of her speech. An unintentional leak may include, for example, a phone call occurring within the vicinity of the meeting in which the presenter's voice can be overheard by others,” Mukherjee [0016], “Thus, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure, methods and systems are provided in which sensitive information within a controlled area may be prevented from being leaked,” Mukherjee [0017], “A compliant device, as used herein, comprises an electronic device on which software is installed that prevents the use of various features and functions of the device. Such software may not be altered by a user of the device, and may, for example, be controlled by the company or entity that controls the secure location,” Mukherjee [0019], “In order to implement the system shown in FIG. 1, various signaling is needed. Reference is now made to FIG. 2. In the embodiment of FIG. 2, a computing device 210 communicates with a system administrator 140. The computing device 210 may be the mobile device or user device of a meeting organizer, for example any of user devices 120-128,” Mukherjee [0038], “In other cases, both microphone and camera functionality may be disabled,” Mukherjee [0041], “In FIG. 4, device 410 includes a processor 420 and a communications subsystem 430, where the processor 420 and communications subsystem 430 cooperate to perform the methods of the embodiments described above,” Mukherjee [0094]), the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, first information indicating that at least one predetermined criterion for restricting the forwarding of voice data is satisfied (see at least, “In one embodiment, the device administrator module further disables features on device 310 on receiving message 320. For example, message 320 may include the features to be disabled on the device in one embodiment. In other embodiments, the entering into a controlled area may cause a default set of features to be disabled. As described below, such features may continue to be disabled until a non-exclusion zone signal is received without receipt of any exclusion zone signal,” Mukherjee [0051], “The device may further include triggers for an enforcement module on the device. Once an exclusion zone signal is detected on the device, the triggers may cause the enforcement module to limit the functionality of the device,” Mukherjee [0052], Mukherjee FIG. 3); and
activating, by the at least one processor, a first module that is configured to disable at least one feature that is associated with the mobile device, such that each of the disabled at least one feature is rendered inoperative (see at least, “In a further embodiment, a list of one or more features that are to be disabled in exclusion zones within controlled area 110 may be configured and stored during entrance into the control area. For example, such list of features may be part of message 320. In this case, if message 350 has no features enumerated, receipt of the message would cause the features configured during entrance to the controlled area 110 to be disabled,” Mukherjee [0078], “Receipt of signal 350 at device 310 triggers an enforcement module on the device. The enforcement module runs at a higher privilege level than the user and other applications to ensure that the enforcement module cannot be circumvented. The enforcement module disables features on the device,” Mukherjee [0079], “The enforcement module may indicate to the user that features or inputs are prohibited by the system administrator. For example, a pop up on the user interface of device 310 may indicate that the device has entered an exclusion zone and that microphone and camera settings are disabled,” Mukherjee [0080], Mukherjee FIG. 3), wherein the at least one predetermined criterion comprises a usage of the mobile device for a purpose that relates to an activity of an employee that is associated with a commercial entity (see at least, “A compliant device, as used herein, comprises an electronic device on which software is installed that prevents the use of various features and functions of the device. Such software may not be altered by a user of the device, and may, for example, be controlled by the company or entity that controls the secure location,” Mukherjee [0019]).
Mukherjee does not disclose wherein the one or more features is a virtual voice assistant. However, Cambridge discloses in regards to “to computer security and privacy,” Cambridge [0001] concerns pertaining to a virtual voice assistant (see at least, “With the modern ubiquity of smart phones, smart televisions, virtual assistants, laptops, desktops, and other "smart" devices, many users have become concerned about security and privacy. In particular, users may not always be aware of which devices are observing them, such as by listening, watching, or collecting other inputs that may be personal to the user. There are many types of virtual assistants that listen to their surroundings with the intention of helping a user perform a specific task, such as listening to a song or scheduling an appointment. These virtual assistants operate on a natural language user interface, meaning they understand natural language voice commands from users, and are programmed to then take appropriate action. But as the popularity of these kinds of devices grows, so do the potential privacy concerns. Virtual assistants are found not only in dedicated virtual assistant devices, such as Amazon Echo, Facebook Portal, Google Assistant, and similar, but also on cell phones, tablets, laptops, televisions, and other devices. The increasing number of virtual assistants means an increasing potential for multiple software agents to listen to an individual at any time. This may occur without the individual even knowing that they are being eavesdropped on. Privacy issues come into play as these agents can send portions of the speech that they detect up to the respective cloud systems for processing, without any interaction or notification,” Cambridge [0019] – [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a virtual voice assistant as disclosed by Cambridge as “one or more features that are to be disabled” as taught by Mukherjee thereby preventing “Privacy issues [that] come into play as these agents can send portions of the speech that they detect up to the respective cloud systems for processing, without any interaction or notification,” Cambridge [0021], in the invention of Mukherjee.
Claim 2: Mukherjee and Cambridge disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one predetermined further criterion comprises a presence of the mobile device at a premises associated with the commercial entity (see at least, “In one embodiment, control area marker 312 may be a Wi-Fi signal at an entrance to the building. However, in other embodiments, any access point may be used, including Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, an Infrared Device Association (IrDA) signal, a near field communication signal (NFC), among other options. For example, the device may use an NFC reader to engage an NFC terminal on entrance and exit from a building,” Mukherjee [0057], “A guard at a security desk at the entrance or egress to the controlled area 110 may look for a physical indication on device 310 that the device has entered into the monitoring mode,” Mukherjee [0058], “For example, a user who swipes an access card to enter the lab may trigger such message. The swipe of the card may send a signal to system administrator 140, which may then cause the device 310 to be signaled, through any access point, that features on the device are to be disabled,” Mukherjee [0088]).
Claim 3: Mukherjee and Cambridge disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the first information includes an indication that an identification card has been swiped at a terminal located at the premises (see at least, “For example, a user who swipes an access card to enter the lab may trigger such message. The swipe of the card may send a signal to system administrator 140, which may then cause the device 310 to be signaled, through any access point, that features on the device are to be disabled,” Mukherjee [0088]).
Claim 4: Mukherjee and Cambridge disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the first information includes geographical location data collected by the mobile device (see at least, “Further, the compliant device administrator may ascertain if the device is in a secure location such as within controlled building, before allowing connection to the meeting,” Mukherjee [0089], In this context, "locating" a device may mean locating it with precision ( e.g., with ultra-precise GPS coordinates), or it may simply mean determining that the device is within range of a BTLE or other transceiver announcement,” Cambridge [0041], “In cases where devices do not self-report, then telemetry data may be collected via Bluetooth, radiofrequency, Wi-Fi, or other means to determine which devices are nearby, and which devices are not self-reporting,” Cambridge [0042]).
Claim 6: Mukherjee and Cambridge disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first information includes login information indicating that the employee is at work (see at least, “For example, a user who swipes an access card to enter the lab may trigger such message. The swipe of the card may send a signal to system administrator 140, which may then cause the device 310 to be signaled, through any access point, that features on the device are to be disabled,” Mukherjee [0088], “Various exclusion zones for user devices 120 to 128 may be made within controlled area 110. An exclusion zone, as used herein, is an area in which at least some features or functions of compliant user devices are disabled. Exclusion zones may be temporary, such as a board room during a board meeting, or may be permanent. For example, a lab within the controlled area 110 may be a permanent exclusion zone. In this case, any device entering such a lab area must be a compliant device with a device administrator module 130 that allows for functionality on the device, such as recording functionality, to be disabled,” Mukherjee [0034], “In the embodiment of FIG. 2, computing device 210 authenticates with the system administrator 140, as shown through authentication 220. Such authentication may be automatic. For example, if computing device includes a device administrator module 130, this module may contain credentials and software for the automatic authentication of the computing device 210 with system administrator module 140. In other embodiments, credentials may need to be entered. For example, if the administrator module 140 is accessed through a web interface, a username and password may be needed. Other options for authentication are possible,” Mukherjee [0039]).
Claim 7: Mukherjee and Cambridge disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving second information indicating that the at least one criterion is no longer satisfied; and deactivating the first module, such that each of the at least one virtual voice assistant is rendered operative (see at least, “Once the signal 350 is no longer received, either by being turned off or the device moving out of range, the device 310 may signal to the system administrator 140 that it no longer sees the exclusion zone signal and may request the enabling of the disabled features. Such request is shown as messages 360 and 362 in FIG. 3,” Mukherjee [0083], “The system administrator 140 may then send a message 364 back to device 310 indicated whether the enabling of features is permitted. For example, in some cases features are not to be enabled when the device is not far enough from the exclusion zone. In other cases, message 360 allows the system administrator 140 to acknowledge that the device 310 is permitted to enable such features,” Mukherjee [0084], “Message 364 passes through access point 314 in the embodiment of FIG. 3, and is forwarded to device 310 as message 366,” Mukherjee [0085], “The enablement of features may further trigger a signal to a user. For example, a pop up on the user interface of the device may indicate that that the user has exited the exclusion zone and that certain features are now enabled,” Mukherjee [0086]).
Claim 8: Mukherjee and Cambridge disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one virtual voice assistant includes at least one from among a Siri® virtual voice assistant associated with Apple®, an Alexa® virtual voice assistant associated with Amazon®, a Cortana® virtual voice assistant associated with Microsoft®, a Google® virtual voice assistant associated with Google®, and a Bixby® virtual voice assistant associated with Samsung® (see at least, “Many individual users specifically trust or mistrust a particular company over another company when it comes to virtual assistants. For example, some users may trust Apple's Siri but not Google's Assistant. Other users may trust Google's Assistant but not Apple's Siri. Yet other users may have a preference for Amazon Alexa, Samsung Bixby, or other virtual assistants,” Cambridge [0033]).
Claim 9: Mukherjee and Cambridge disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the mobile device comprises at least one from among a smart phone, a tablet computing device, and a laptop computing device (see at least, “The compliant device may be any electronic device that has recording capabilities, including but not limited to any of the following, including any combination of any of the following: a cellular telephone, a mobile device, a user equipment, an endpoint, a camera, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a vehicle, wearable devices including glasses or watches, among other options,” Mukherjee [0019]).
Claims 10 – 13 and 16 – 18 are directed to a computing apparatus for restricting a forwarding of voice data received by a mobile device, the computing apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory; and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory, wherein the processor is configured to perform the method substantially similar in scope to claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 9, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons (see also at least, “In FIG. 4, device 410 includes a processor 420 and a communications subsystem 430, where the processor 420 and communications subsystem 430 cooperate to perform the methods of the embodiments described above,” Mukherjee [0094], “Processor 420 is configured to execute programmable logic, which may be stored, along with data, on device 410, and shown in the example of FIG. 4 as memory 440. Memory 440 can be any tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” Mukherjee [0095], Mukherjee FIG. 4).
Claims 19 – 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for restricting a forwarding of voice data received by a mobile device, the storage medium comprising executable code which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: perform the method substantially similar in scope to claims 1 – 2, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons (see also at least, “The present disclosure further provides a computer readable medium for storing program code, which, when executed on a processor of a computing device are configured
to disable one or more features on the computing device,” Mukherjee [0013], “In FIG. 4, device 410 includes a processor 420 and a communications subsystem 430, where the processor 420 and communications subsystem 430 cooperate to perform the methods of the embodiments described above,” Mukherjee [0094], “Processor 420 is configured to execute programmable logic, which may be stored, along with data, on device 410, and shown in the example of FIG. 4 as memory 440. Memory 440 can be any tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” Mukherjee [0095], Mukherjee FIG. 4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:00 a.m. - 4 p.m., EST.
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, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/JOSEPH SAUNDERS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights