DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the request for reconsideration filed 9/8/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 are maintained.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Royer, U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0059556 (“Royer”).
With regard to Claim 1, Royer teaches a communication device comprising:
a user interface (UI) ([0013], user interface 106);
a first electronic processor configured to detect and process UI input events; and a second electronic processor communicatively connected to the first electronic processor and configured to detect and process UI input events ([0013] describes a first application and a second application, where [0015] describes that one or more of the applications may be web-based or client-server, and be accessed remotely over a network. [0023] describes that the applications receive and respond to user input), wherein
the first electronic processor is further configured to execute a first application having a user inactivity timeout feature by initializing a countdown timer for a first time period, in response to expiration of the countdown timer, determining a user inactivity time for the communication device, the user inactivity time being a lesser of a time since a UI input event was last detected by the first electronic processor and a time since a UI input event was last detected by the second electronic processor ([0025] describes that the first application determines an inactivity state by measuring the time from a last detected user activity; when the time expires, the application determines that a user is inactive. [0045]-[0046] describes that the second application is informed that the first has reached its inactivity threshold, and the second application replies as to whether its inactivity threshold has been reached), and
in response to the user inactivity time being greater than or equal to the first time period, performing a first application timeout function that includes at least one selected from the group consisting of disabling a UI feature of the first application, providing an alert to the UI that a user inactivity timeout has occurred, transmitting an alert to an external device that a user inactivity timeout has occurred, and entering a power saving state ([0054]-[0056] describe that when the second application determined itself to be inactive, i.e. had reached its inactivity threshold, the first application changes to the inactive state, and disables the application features by logging the user out of the application. The time in this instance is greater than or equal to the first time period, as the input to both applications has been determined as having occurred at a time that allowed both inactivity thresholds to be reached).
Claim 20 recites a method which is carried out by the device of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Royer teaches that the first electronic processor is configured to determine the time since a UI input event was last detected by the second electronic processor by in response to expiration of the countdown timer, transmitting a request to the second electronic processor for the time since a UI input event was last detected. [0040] describes that the first application indicates to a managing application that it is changing to an inactive state. [0043]-[0047] describe that the change is sent to the second application, which replies to indicate whether it is active or inactive.
With regard to Claim 3, Royer teaches that the first electronic processor is further configured to, in response to the user inactivity time being less than the first time period, reinitialize the countdown timer for a first delta time period, the first delta time period being a difference between the first time period and the user inactivity time. [0048]-[0050] describe that the first application cancels the change to inactive, and sets a polling timer to continue checking if the second application reaches the inactivity threshold.
With regard to Claim 4, Royer teaches that the first electronic processor is further configured to in response to expiration of the reinitialized countdown timer, determine an updated user inactivity time, and in response to the updated user inactivity time being greater than or equal to the first time period, perform the first application timeout function. [0049]-[0056] describes that when the polling timer expires, the second application is again contacted; if the second application is in an inactive state because the inactivity threshold has been reached, the first application changes to the inactive state and initiates user log off.
With regard to Claim 5, Royer teaches that the second electronic processor is further configured to execute a second application having a user inactivity timeout feature by initializing a second countdown timer for a second time period, in response to expiration of the second countdown timer, determining the user inactivity time for the communication device, the user inactivity time being a lesser of a time since a UI input event was last detected by the first electronic processor and a time since a UI input event was last detected by the second electronic processor, and in response to the user inactivity time being greater than or equal to the second time period, perform a second application timeout function.
Royer at [0030] describes that the managing application coordinates the inactivity thresholds among the multiple applications by exchanging the activity status between the first and second applications. Therefore, the actions described at [0025] and [0045]-[0046] which are described with regard to the first application, are also carried out for the second application.
With regard to Claim 9, Royer teaches that a UI input event detected by the first electronic processor or the second electronic processor includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a touch screen event, a button press event, a knob movement event, an accessory connection event, and a communication device movement event. [0025] describes that user activity can be mouse, keyboard, or other data input device activity, where [0020] describes that the input device can be a touch screen.
With regard to Claim 12, Royer teaches that the communication device is a portable radio device. [0015] describes that the system can be implemented in a portable computing device of many types, including PDAs and mobile phones which include radio capabilities.
With regard to Claim 13, Royer teaches that the first electronic processor detects a different set of UI input events than the second electronic processor. [0023] describes that each application is separate, and [0015] describes that one of the applications can be accessible remotely from the other.
With regard to Claim 14, Royer teaches that the first electronic processor is further configured to in response to performing a first application timeout function, transmit, to the second electronic processor, a command to enter an immediate mode, wherein, in the immediate mode, the second electronic processor reports, to the first electronic processor, UI input events, in response to detection of the UI input events by the second electronic processor and without receiving a request from the first electronic processor, in response to detecting a UI input event or receiving, from the second electronic processor, an indication that the second electronic processor has detected a UI input event, exit the immediate mode, and reinitialize the countdown timer. [0059] describes that after both applications are determined inactive, and the inactivity action is taken by logging the user off, any user activity in either application causes both to be changed to an active state.
With regard to Claim 15, Royer teaches a communication device comprising:
a user interface (UI) ([0013], user interface 106);
a first electronic processor configured to detect and process UI input events; and a second electronic processor communicatively connected to the first electronic processor and configured to detect and process UI input events ([0013] describes a first application and a second application, where [0015] describes that one or more of the applications may be web-based or client-server, and be accessed remotely over a network. [0023] describes that the applications receive and respond to user input), wherein
the first electronic processor is further configured to execute, in a first mode of operation, an application having a user inactivity timeout feature, in the first mode, periodically determine a user inactivity time of the communication device, the user inactivity time being an amount of time that no UI input events are detected by the first electronic processor or the second electronic processor ([0025] describes that the first application determines an inactivity state by measuring the time from a last detected user activity; when the time expires, the application determines that a user is inactive),
in response to determining that the user inactivity time exceeds a first time period, perform a user inactivity timeout function ([0054]-[0056] describe that when the second application determined itself to be inactive, i.e. had reached its inactivity threshold, the first application changes to the inactive state, and disables the application features by logging the user out of the application) and
execute the application in a second mode of operation, wherein, in the second mode, the second electronic processor asynchronously reports, to the first electronic processor, UI input events detected by the second electronic processor ([0059] describes that after both applications are determined inactive, and the inactivity action is taken by logging the user off, any user activity in either application causes both to be changed to an active state).
With regard to Claim 16, Royer teaches that the first electronic processor is further configured to in the second mode, in response to determining that a UI input event is detected by the first electronic processor or the second electronic processor, cancel the user inactivity timeout function and execute the application in the first mode of operation. [0059] describes that after both applications are determined inactive, and the inactivity action is taken by logging the user off, any user activity in either application causes both to be changed to an active state, where the applications return to monitoring user activity using the inactivity threshold.
With regard to Claim 17, Royer teaches that in the first mode, the first electronic processor periodically determines the user inactivity time by initializing a countdown timer for the first time period, in response to expiration of the countdown timer, determining a time since a UI input was last detected by the first electronic processor, transmitting a request to the second electronic processor for a time since a UI input event was last detected by the second electronic processor, and determining the user inactivity time as a lesser of the time since a UI input event was last detected by the first electronic processor and the time since a UI input event was last detected by the second electronic processor.
Royer at [0025] describes that the first application determines an inactivity state by measuring the time from a last detected user activity; when the time expires, the application determines that a user is inactive. [0045]-[0046] describes that the second application is informed that the first has reached its inactivity threshold, and the second application replies as to whether its inactivity threshold has been reached.
With regard to Claim 18, Royer teaches that the first electronic processor is further configured to, in response to expiration of the countdown timer and the user inactivity time being less than the first time period, reinitialize the countdown timer for a first delta time period, the first delta time period being a difference between the first time period and the user inactivity time. [0048]-[0050] describe that the first application cancels the change to inactive, and sets a polling timer to continue checking if the second application reaches the inactivity threshold.
With regard to Claim 19, Royer teaches that UI input events detected by the first electronic processor include touch screen events and UI input events detected by the second electronic processor include button press events and/or dial movement events. [0025] describes that user activity can be mouse, keyboard, or other data input device activity, where [0020] describes that the input device can be a touch screen. Therefore, each application operating on each processor can detect touch screen and button press events.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royer, in view of Quinlan, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0269963 (“Quinlan”).
With regard to Claim 6, Quinlan teaches that the first electronic processor is further configured to, in response to detecting a UI input event, generate and store a timestamp associated with the detection. [0031] describes that an inactivity timer records a timestamp of a last detected user activity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Quinlan with Royer. Quinlan teaches at [0009] that a timestamp can include a digital; signature, enabling authenticity to be confirmed among multiple applications managed by a timeout process. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling a shared timeout function that has the ability to increase security and mitigate risk.
With regard to Claim 7, Quinlan teaches that the first electronic processor is further configured to, during execution of a second application by the second electronic processor, receive, from the second electronic processor, a request for the time since a UI input event was last detected by the first electronic processor, and in response to receiving the request, transmit, to the second electronic processor, a response indicative of the time since a UI input event was last detected by the first electronic processor. [0032] describes that a timestamp API is used by applications to request timestamps from one another. [0037] describes transmitting messages including the timestamps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Quinlan with Royer. Quinlan teaches at [0009] that a timestamp can include a digital; signature, enabling authenticity to be confirmed among multiple applications managed by a timeout process. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by enabling a shared timeout function that has the ability to increase security and mitigate risk.
With regard to Claim 8, Royer teaches that the first application is stored in a first memory and the second application is stored in a second memory different from the first memory. [0015] describes that one of a first or second application can be accessed remotely over a network, indicating that the applications can be stored in different memories – one local and the other remote.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royer, in view of Coldwell, U.S. PGPUN No. 2009/0089825 (“Coldwell”).
With regard to Claim 10, Coldwell teaches that the first electronic processor is further configured to, in response to disabling a UI feature of the first application, prompt a user, via the UI, to enter a PIN to reenable the UI feature. [0071]-[0072] describes that an application can transition to a timeout state when an activity timer expires. The system can prompt a user for a PIN in response to the disabling, when a user activates an interface element and the restriction is in place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Coldwell with Royer. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by maintaining authentication protection of application content, while allowing for authentication options that are quicker than the provision of a full login to return to a timed-out application.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royer, in view of Jasso, et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,951,667 (“Jasso”).
With regard to Claim 11, Jasso teaches that providing the alert to the user interface that the user inactivity timeout has occurred includes transmitting a command to the second electronic processor to generate the alert. Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 14 describes that a session manager can prevent timeouts from inactivity among a plurality of applications, some of which are remote. Col. 6, lines 21-67 describe that a determined user inactivity can send a message to the application server, to activate a countdown timer. Part of the countdown can include an alert to a user that application timeout will occur in the specified time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Jasso with Royer. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by alerting users to potential application timeout, thereby allowing users to avoid disruptive timeout responses such as being logged out from an application in which a user is working.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues with regard to Claim 1 that Royer fails to teach “a second electronic processor communicatively connected to the first electronic processor and configured to detect and process UI input events.” Applicant alleges that Royer is deficient because the recited second processor is mapped to a “second application.”
Royer teaches that one or more applications can be web-based or client-server at [0015], and accessed remotely over a network. As shown in Fig. 1, applications are stored in memory, which communicate with a processor to provide information to a user through an interface, as well as to a communication link. Therefore, an application which is web-based and accessed remotely as described in Royer is executed using a processor remote from the user which receives inputs and processes the events.
As this remote processor is communicatively connected to the first processor through the communication link, the teachings of Royer anticipate the claimed architecture. Applicant appears to also be arguing that the multiple processor subsystems within a single physical object disclosed in Fig. 1 distinguish from the teachings of Royer. While Examiner might agree that this is the case, the claims do not specify that the processors are housed or contained within a single physical object, only that they are communicatively connected. As Royer teaches a remote connection to a second processor, this claim language is anticipated even though the disclosure recites a different exemplary embodiment.
Applicant then argues with regard to Claim 13 that Royer does not teach that the first electronic processor detects a different set of UI inputs than the second electronic processor. As explained in the rejection, [0023] describes that each of the applications is separate from the other, and [0015] teaches that one or more of the applications can be accessed remotely. As one application can be remote as described, the other can execute locally and the applications are remote from one another. Further, each application maintains its own activity state that is determined by user interaction with the application, described at [0024]. Therefore, each is able to receive UI inputs that are not received by the other applications.
Applicant then argues with regard to Claim 14 that Royer does not disclose any immediate mode where the second electronic processor reports UI events without receiving a request. However, [0030] describes that a managing application receives activity status from the applications; no request is sent for the status data. As shown at Fig. 2, data requests from the managing application only occur when a state change in one of the applications occurs. [0039] describes that polling the applications stops occurring when the applications are both in the inactive state, further indicating that when both applications are inactive, activity state data requests are not made.
Applicant also argues that Royer does not disclose a second electronic processor communicating with the first processor, however the multiple processor architecture is described in Royer as explained both in these remarks and the above rejection. Further, [0030] describes that a first application and the managing application with which each application communicates can be located in the same PC. This places the remote second application, operating on a different processor, in communication with the first processor regarding its status in any of the activity state modes, as it communicates its activity status to the managing application.
For these reasons, and for the reasons given in the above rejection, Claims 1, 13 and 14 remain properly rejected as anticipated by the teachings of Royer. As the rejections of the other claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 have not been separately challenged, those rejections likewise remain valid under the cited art.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
9/25/2026
