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 .
The Application number 18/905,336 filed on 10/3/2024 has been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/3/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 6-9, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horne et al. (US 2023/0080347 hereinafter Horne).
Regarding claim 1, Horne discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an authentication request to access a device (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041]-[0045]; i.e. receiving input security measures or credentials to login or access a device);
determining that the authentication request is to initiate a security system on the device (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041]-[0045]; i.e. determining that the login or accessing the device is to access different secure configuration of the computing device); and
in response to initiating the security system, executing an artificial environment, appearing as a real environment, for presentation on the device, wherein the artificial environment is presented to exclude sensitive information of the real environment (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041], [0045]; i.e. in response to the login or access different secure configuration of the computing device, executing a false or fake desktop system to display restricted or false data).
Regarding claim 2, Horne discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the authentication request is a biometric authentication (¶ [0023]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Horne discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the artificial environment is a copy of a type of applications in the real environment but with different data for the applications; the artificial environment is a copy of the real environment with different applications and with the different data for the different applications; the artificial environment is a different environment from the real environment with the applications and with the different data for the applications; the artificial environment is a different environment from the real environment with the different applications and with the different data for the different applications; or the artificial environment is a customized environment designed by an owner of the device (¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Horne discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the authentication request is received using one or more sensors of the device (¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, Horne discloses a device comprising:
a memory having computer readable instructions (FIG. 1 & 5); and
one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions when executed cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (FIG. 1 & 5):
receiving an authentication request to access the device (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041]-[0045]; i.e. receiving input security measures or credentials to login or access a device);
determining that the authentication request is to initiate a security system on the device (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041]-[0045]; i.e. determining that the login or accessing the device is to access different secure configuration of the computing device); and
in response to initiating the security system, executing an artificial environment, appearing as a real environment, for presentation on the device, wherein the artificial environment is presented to exclude sensitive information of the real environment (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041], [0045]; i.e. in response to the login or access different secure configuration of the computing device, executing a false or fake desktop system to display restricted or false data).
Regarding claim 9, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 7 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 15, Horne discloses a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving an authentication request to access a device (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041]-[0045]; i.e. receiving input security measures or credentials to login or access a device);
determining that the authentication request is to initiate a security system on the device (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041]-[0045]; i.e. determining that the login or accessing the device is to access different secure configuration of the computing device); and
in response to initiating the security system, executing an artificial environment, appearing as a real environment, for presentation on the device, wherein the artificial environment is presented to exclude sensitive information of the real environment (FIG. 1-6, ¶ [0023]-[0025], [0041], [0045]; i.e. in response to the login or access different secure configuration of the computing device, executing a false or fake desktop system to display restricted or false data).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
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 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne et al. (US 2023/0080347 hereinafter Horne) in view of Sipolins et al. (US 2025/0238530 hereinafter Sipolins).
Regarding claim 3, Horne discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Horne does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the authentication request is to initiate the security system on the device comprises identifying that a security request occurred during fingerprint recognition.
However, Sipolins discloses wherein the determining that the authentication request is to initiate the security system on the device comprises identifying that a security request occurred during fingerprint recognition (FIG. 1 & 7, ¶ [0041]-[0042], [0098]-[0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horne and Sipolins in order to protect confidential and sensitive information related to a user associated with computing device while still allowing access to some functionalities, data and/or displays of the computing device, while the computing device is in an unlocked state (Sipolins, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Horne discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Horne does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the authentication request is to initiate the security system on the device comprises identifying that a security request occurred during facial recognition.
However, Sipolins discloses wherein the determining that the authentication request is to initiate the security system on the device comprises identifying that a security request occurred during facial recognition (FIG. 1 & 7, ¶ [0041]-[0042], [0098]-[0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horne and Sipolins in order to protect confidential and sensitive information related to a user associated with computing device while still allowing access to some functionalities, data and/or displays of the computing device, while the computing device is in an unlocked state (Sipolins, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Horne discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Horne does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the authentication request is to initiate the security system on the device comprises identifying that a security request occurred during gesture recognition.
However, Sipolins discloses wherein the determining that the authentication request is to initiate the security system on the device comprises identifying that a security request occurred during gesture recognition (FIG. 1 & 7, ¶ [0041]-[0042], [0098]-[0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horne and Sipolins in order to protect confidential and sensitive information related to a user associated with computing device while still allowing access to some functionalities, data and/or displays of the computing device, while the computing device is in an unlocked state (Sipolins, ¶ [0002]-[0005]).
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 12, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
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
Prosecution Insights