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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the communication filed on 10/31/2024. Claims 1-29 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 21 and 26 are independent. Claims 1-29 have been rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0222894 A1 (hereinafter Kenny et al)
Regarding claim 1, Kenny et al teaches a security system managing at least one security device (note figure 1.101; figure 2.201: internet enabled device; para. [0034], [0035]) adapted to generate security data, comprising:
a computing system (note figure 1.101: computer; para. [0034], [0035]) adapted to associate a first user account (note para. [0054]]: a second or delegated user / third party administrative user account) and a second user account with the security system (note para. [0030], [0054]: first/ original user account), wherein the security system is associated with a first entity (note para. [0054]: original user computer) and wherein the first user account is associated with a third-party entity (note para. [0054], [0057]: a second or delegated user/ third party administrative user account);
the computing system adapted to grant permissions associated with the security system for the first user account (note para. [0029], [0030], [0048]: access policy associated with a first/ original user);
the computing system adapted to prompt the second user account to assume control of the security system following receiving the request (note para. [0030], [0055], [0057]: providing notification to a user or a third party administrative user when any administrative changes made to the account; sending invitation/ prompt to a second user account for accepting invitation to be third party administrator);
the computing system adapted to modify permissions associated with the security system for the second user account in response to the second user account assuming control of the security system (note para. [0056], [0057]: third party administrative user assuming control of the computing system); and
the computing system adapted to restrict permissions associated with the security system for the first user account following the second user account assuming control of the security system (note para. [0056], [0057]: following the third party administrative user assuming control of the computing system, the third party administrative user has control over original user account and can restrict original user’s access to certain administrative settings)
Kenny et al apparently teaches use of an invitation and notification process from a second account (user) for delegating administrative access to the security system to a first user/ third party administrator (note para. [0054] – [0055]), and fails to teach expressly the computing system adapted to receive a request for activating the security system from the first user account.
However, Kenny et al alternatively teaches once an invitation to be a first user/ third party administrator has been accepted, the first user/ third party can log in and control the user's account; and the first user/ third party administrator can change all of the Internet Access Control application settings and which categories are blocked or allowed (note para. [0057] [0058]) Therefore, Kenny et al. essentially teaches that access to the security system/ administrative control was initially blocked for a first user/ third party administrator. However, activation of the security system from the first user / third party administrator took place once they accepted the invitation and logged in the system without sending a separate step of requesting access to the security system (e.g. activating the security system)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Kenny et al system to further include the features of the computing system adapted to receive a request for activating the security system from the first user account since such arrangements would further/ alternatively ensure that the first user/ third party administrator properly initiated a delegation for administrative access to the security system.
Regarding claim 21, Kenny et al teaches a data management system (note para. [0008]: operating environment), comprising:
a computing system (note figure 1.101: computer; para. [0034]) adapted to associate a first user account for the data management system (note para. [0030], [0034]), wherein the data management system is associated with a first entity (note para. [0054]: original user computer) and the first user account is associated with a third-party entity (note para. [0054], [0057]: a second or delegated user/ third party administrative user account);
the computing system adapted to generate a second user account (note para. [0030], [0054]: first/ original user account) for the data management system, wherein the second user account is associated with the first entity (note para. [0030], [0054]: first/ original user is interpreted as first entity);
the computing system adapted to prompt the second user account to assume control of the data management system in response to receiving the request to activate the data management system (note para. [0030], [0055], [0057]: providing notification to a user or a third party administrative user when any administrative changes made to the account; sending invitation/ prompt to a second user account for accepting invitation to be third party administrator);
the computing system adapted to grant permissions associated with the data management system for the second user account in response to the second user account assuming control of the data management system (note para. [0056], [0057]: third party administrative user assuming control of the computing system); and
the computing system adapted to restrict permissions associated with the data management system for the first user account following the second user account assuming control of the data management system (note para. [0056], [0057]: following the third party administrative user assuming control of the computing system, the third party administrative user has control over original user account and can restrict original user’s access to certain administrative settings)
Kenny et al apparently teaches use of an invitation and notification process from a second account (user) for delegating administrative access to the security system to a first user/ third party administrator (note para. [0054] – [0055]), and fails to teach expressly the computing system adapted to receive a request for activating the security system from the first user account.
However, Kenny et al alternatively teaches once an invitation to be a first user/ third party administrator has been accepted, the first user/ third party can log in and control the user's account; and the first user/ third party administrator can change all of the Internet Access Control application settings and which categories are blocked or allowed (note para. [0057] [0058]) Therefore, Kenny et al. essentially teaches that access to the security system/ administrative control was initially blocked for a first user/ third party administrator. However, activation of the security system from the first user / third party administrator was took place once they accepted the invitation and logged in the system without sending a separate step of requesting access to the security system (e.g. activating the security system)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Kenny et al system to further include the features of the computing system receiving a request to activate the security system from the first user account since such arrangements would further/ alternatively ensure that the first user/ third party administrator properly initiated a delegation for administrative access to the security system.
Regarding claim 2, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, Kenny et al teaches the system wherein the second user account is associated with an owner of the security system (note para. [0054], [0057]: second user account associated with an original user of the computing system)
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, Kenny et al teaches the security system wherein to prompt the second user to assume control of the security system
wherein the computing system is adapted to modify permissions associated with the security system for the second user account
Kenny et al fails to teach expressly prompting the user to accept legal terms for using the security system; and modifying permissions associated with the security system for the second user account in response to the second user account accepting the legal terms.
However, examiner takes an official notice on that before the effective filing of the claimed invention, features such as an administrative user’s to accept the legal terms and conditions were well-known in the art (as evidenced by Brandwine, US 2017/0359356 A1, para. [0030]: subscribers agreeing with terms and conditions associated with the permission settings) Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to design a security system wherein the computing system is adapted to modify permissions associated with the security system for the second user account in response to the second user account accepting the legal terms in order to provide users with a well-known and suitable mechanism for ensuring users privacy and legal rights concerning a shared/ delegated account settings.
Regarding claim 4, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 3, furthermore, examiner takes an official notice on that before the effective filing of the claimed invention, features such as an administrative user’s to accept the legal terms and conditions or notifying users regarding legal terms and conditions were well-known in the art (as evidenced by Brandwine, US 2017/0359356 A1, para. [0030]: subscribers agreeing with terms and conditions associated with the permission settings) Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to design a security system teaches the security system wherein to prompt the second user account to accept the legal terms for using the security system, the computing system is adapted to transmit a message including the legal terms to the second user account in order to provide users with a well-known and suitable mechanism for ensuring users privacy and legal rights concerning a shared/ delegated account settings.
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, Kenny et al teaches the security system, wherein the permissions associated with the security system for the first user account comprise configuration permissions (note para. [0005], [0057]); and
wherein to restrict the permissions associated with the security system for the first user account, the computing system is adapted to restrict the configuration permissions following the second user account assuming control of the security system (note para. [0005], [0054], [0057]: restricting administrative settings)
Regarding claim 6, Kenny et al teaches the security system of claim 1, wherein the permissions associated with the security system for the first user account comprise t view permissions (note para. [0005], [0054], [0057]: restricting administrative settings), and
wherein to restrict the permissions associated with the security system for the first user account, the computing system is adapted to maintain the permissions (note para. [0005], [0054], [0057]: restricting administrative settings)
Kenny et al fails to teach expressly the first user account comprise telemetry view permissions; and the computing system is adapted to maintain the telemetry permissions.
However, Kenny et al alternatively teaches monitoring and logging user’s internet usage data and collecting user’s internet usage data from the server/ logging database (note para. [0042], [0043]); and collecting user’s viewing attempts or website visited information; and the delegated administrator controlling user’s internet access (e.g. viewing permissions) based on the collected data (note para. [0058] – [0060]) Therefore, Kenny et al. essentially teaches maintain (e.g. logging) the telemetry (e.g. collected from the logging server) view permissions (e.g. internet access policy)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Kenny et al system to further include the features of the first user account comprise telemetry view permissions; and the computing system is adapted to maintain the telemetry permissions since such arrangement would be beneficial to a delegated administrator to properly manage website viewing/ internet access permissions based on the user specific collected/ telemetric data.
Regarding claim 7, Kenny et al teaches the security system of claim 1, wherein to restrict permissions associated with the security system for the first user account comprises restricting permissions associated with the security system for the first user account in response to the second user account assuming control of the security system (note para. [0054] –[0055], [0057]: parameters/ threshold related to delegation; restricting administrative settings for the original/ first user)
Kenny et al fails to teach expressly wherein to restrict permissions associated with the security system for the first user account occurs after a predetermined delay following the second user account assuming control of the security system.
However, examiner takes an official notice on that before the effective filing of the claimed invention, features such as letting the original user to control the security system until certain time elapsed or setting a predetermined time delay before the delegation to the second user took place were well-known in the art and would have been part of an administrative choice to make regarding delegation time frame. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to design a security system to restrict permissions associated with the security system for the first user account occurs after a predetermined delay following the second user account assuming control of the security system in order to provide users with an alternative/ suitable mechanism for choosing a predetermined delegation time frame by the original user of the account.
Regarding claim 8, Kenny et al teaches the security system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is adapted to generate a third user account for the security system,
wherein the third user account for the security system is associated with a client of the first entity (note para. [0057] – [0058]); and wherein the computing system is adapted to assign permissions associated with the security system for the third user account based on a first input received from the second user account (note para. [0055], [0057] – [0058]: delegating control to a second/ third user to access as a third party administrator; Kenny et al teaches any one of the users could act as a third party administrator)
Regarding claim 9, Kenny et al teaches the security system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is adapted to delete the third user account based on a second input received from the second user account (note para. [0056]: removing delegation)
Regarding claim 10, Kenny et al teaches the security system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is a cloud-based computing system that includes:
a plurality of processors coupled to each other via a network (note figure 1.103: processor); and
a plurality of displays coupled to the plurality of processors (note figure 1.111: display device)
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, Kenny et al teaches the security system of claim 1, wherein the computing system (note figure 1.101: computer; para. [0034]) is coupled to the at least one security device (note figure 2.201; para. [0034], [0035]: Internet enabled devices) via a network.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, Kenny et al teaches the security system wherein the computing system includes a storage device (note figure 1.104 and 107: data storage);
wherein the computing system is adapted to receive the security data generated by the at least one security device (note para. [0030], [0043]); and
wherein the computing device is adapted to store the security data in the storage device (note para. [0030], [0043]: logging database)
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 12, Kenny et al teaches the security system of claim 12, wherein the computing system is adapted to permit the second user account to access the security data stored in the storage device based on modified permissions associated with the security system for the second user account (note para. [0029] – [0030], [0054]: modifying/ restricting access permissions for different applications)
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 12, Kenny et al teaches the security system wherein the computing system is adapted to prevent the first user account from accessing the security data stored in the storage device (note para. [0029] – [0030]: database) based on restricted permissions associated with the security system for the first user account (note para. [0029] – [0030], [0054]: modifying/ restricting access permissions)
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 12, Kenny et al teaches the security system wherein the computing system is adapted to generate a third user account for the security system (note para. [0054] – [0055]) ; and
wherein the computing system is adapted to permit the third user account to access the security data stored in the storage device based on restricted permissions associated with the security system for the third user account (note para. [0054] – [0055]).
Kenny et al fails to teach expressly accessing the security data stored in the storage device for a limited amount of time based on restricted permissions associated with the security system for the third user account.
However, examiner takes an official notice on that before the effective filing of the claimed invention, features such as letting the original user to control the security system until certain time elapsed or setting a predetermined time delay before the delegation to the second user took place were well-known in the art and would have been part of an administrative choice to make regarding delegation time frame. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to design a security system accessing the security data stored in the storage device for a limited amount of time based on restricted permissions associated with the security system for the third user account in order to provide users with an alternative/ suitable mechanism for choosing a predetermined administrative delegation time frame by an original user of the account.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 12, furthermore, examiner takes an official notice on that before the effective filing of the claimed invention, features such as wherein the computing system is adapted to prevent the first user account from accessing the at least one security device when a particular amount of time passes after activation of the security device were well-known in the art and would have been part of an administrative choice to make regarding delegation time frame. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to design a security system preventing the first user account from accessing the at least one security device when a particular amount of time passes after activation of the security device in order to provide users with an alternative/ suitable mechanism for choosing a predetermined administrative delegation time frame by an original user of the account.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, examiner takes an official notice on that before the effective filing of the claimed invention, features such as wherein the computing system is adapted to prompt the first user account to accept legal terms for using the security system were well-known in the art (as evidenced by Brandwine, US 2017/0359356 A1, para. [0030]: subscribers agreeing with terms and conditions associated with the permission settings) Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to design a security system wherein the computing system is adapted to prompt the first user account to accept legal terms for using the security system in order to provide users with a well-known and suitable mechanism for ensuring users privacy and legal rights concerning a shared/ delegated account settings.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, Kenny et al teaches the security system wherein the computing system is adapted to receive a request for creating the second user account from the first user account (note para. [0054], [0055]); and
wherein the computing system is adapted to create the second user account in response to receiving the request for creating the second user account (note para. [0054], [0055]: sending invitation to third party administrator)
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, Kenny et al teaches the security system, wherein the computing system is adapted to:
receive a subsequent request (note para. [0029] -[0030], [0054]);
modify permissions associated with the subsequent user account in response to receiving the subsequent request (note para. [0030], [0054]- [0055]: modifying permissions);
prompt the second user to assume control (note para. [0054], [0055]: sending invitation to a second user/ third party administrator); and
modify subsequent permissions (note para. [0054] [0055], [0057]: modifying/ restricting access permissions for different applications)
Kenny et al fails to teach expressly receiving a subsequent request for activating an expansion to the security system from a subsequent user account associated with a subsequent third-party entity; and modifying subsequent permissions associated with the expansion for the second user account in response to the second user account assuming control of the expansion.
However, Kenny et al alternatively teaches delegating control to a different user (e.g. a second/ third user) to access as a third party administrator (note para. [0029] – [0030], [0054]) Therefore, Kenny et al. essentially teaches expansion to the security system from a subsequent user account associated with a subsequent third-party entity.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Kenny et al system to further include the features of modifying subsequent permissions associated with the expansion for the second user account in response to the second user account assuming control of the expansion since such arrangement would be beneficial to allow any one of the security system users to act as a delegated third party administrator and assuming control of the security system.
Regarding claim 20, Kenny et al teaches the security system of claim 19, wherein responsive to the second user account assuming control of the expansion, the computing system is adapted to create a tertiary user account or modify permissions associated with the tertiary user account, the tertiary user account associated with a tertiary third-party entity (note para. [0057] – [0058]: If the third party administrator cannot log in then access will not be allowed; the third party can have the ability to restrict the user's access to certain administrative settings in the administrative controls)
Regarding claim 22, Kenny et al teaches the data management system of claim 21, further comprising a data storage device;
wherein to generate the second user account, the computing system is adapted to assign the second user account owner permissions for accessing data stored in the data storage device and lock the owner permissions for accessing data stored in the data storage device (note para. [0057] – [0058]: locking access to administrative functions)
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 22, furthermore, Kenny et al teaches the data management system wherein to grant permissions associated with the data management system to the second user account, the computing system is adapted to unlock the owner permissions for accessing data stored in the data storage device (note para. [0057] – [0058]: user access to certain categories allowed or blocked)
Regarding claim 24, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 23, furthermore, examiner takes an official notice on that before the effective filing of the claimed invention, features such as an administrative user’s to accept the legal terms and conditions were well-known in the art (as evidenced by Brandwine, US 2017/0359356 A1, para. [0030]: subscribers agreeing with terms and conditions associated with the permission settings) Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to design a security system wherein to prompt the second user account to assume control of the data management system, the computing system is adapted to transmit a message including legal terms for using the data management system to the second user account in order to provide users with a well-known and suitable mechanism for ensuring users privacy and legal rights concerning a shared/ delegated account settings.
Regarding claim 25, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 21, furthermore, teaches the data management system wherein to restrict permissions associated with the data management system for the first user account, the computing system is adapted to delete the first user account (note para. [0056] – [0058]: delegated/ third party user to control permissions for the other users accounts; inactivating/ removal of delegation or administrative access)
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0108192 A1 (hereinafter HO et al.) in view of Kenny et al.
Regarding claim 26, HO et al. teaches a security system (note figure 3.301; figure 21.2100: door management platform; para. [0053]: B lock system), comprising:
at least one surveillance camera adapted to generate video data (note para. [0006], [0053], [0139]: camera);
at least one access control (note figure 3.304: Micro Controller) adapted to control access to a door and generate security data associated with a number of times the door was accessed (note para. [0053] –[0054]); and
a computing system adapted to generate a first user account (note para. [0078]: a first user account) and a second user account for the security system (note para. [0063], [0078]: each/ other user of the door management platform having an account);
the computing system adapted to receive a request for activating the security system from the first user account (note para. [0062], [0065]: owner/ existing user attempting to unlock);
wherein to restrict the permissions associated with the security system for the first user account includes denying the first user account access to the video content and the security data (note para. [0066], [0075]: a second user can perform as new administrator and delete existing administrator account);
and
the computing system adapted to modify permissions associated with the security system for the second user account in response to the second user assuming control of the security system (note para. [0066], [0079]: managing/ authorizing permissions for the second user)
HO et al. fails to teach expressly the computing system adapted to restrict permissions associated with the security system for the first user account following receiving the request; and the computing system adapted to prompt the second user to assume control of the security system in response to receiving the request.
However, Kenny et al. teaches the computing system adapted to restrict permissions associated with the security system for the first user account following receiving the request (note para. [0056], [0057]: following the third party administrative user assuming control of the computing system, the third party administrative user has control over original user account and can restrict original user’s access to certain administrative settings); and the computing system adapted to prompt the second user to assume control of the security system in response to receiving the request (note para. [0030], [0055], [0057]: providing notification to a user or a third party administrative user when any administrative changes made to the account; sending invitation/ prompt to a second user account for accepting invitation to be third party administrator)
Kenny et al and HO et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of managing access/ permissions associated with various user accounts in a network environment. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify HO et al. system to further include the features of restricting permissions associated with the security system for the first user account following receiving the request; and prompting the second user to assume control of the security system in response to receiving the request in order to provide users with an improved mechanism for delegating the administrative authority from a door management system/ owner account to a different/ second user in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 27, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 26, furthermore, HO et al. teaches the security system wherein the security system is associated with a first entity (note para. [0078]: a first user account); wherein the first user account is associated with a third-party entity (note para. [0057]: owner of the B-lock system/ door management platform); and wherein the second user account is associated with the first entity (note para. [0063], [0078]: each/ other user of the door management platform having an account)
Regarding claim 28, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 26, furthermore, HO et al. teaches the security system wherein the computing system is adapted to delete the first user account following the second user account assuming control of the security system (note para. [0066], [0075]: a second user can perform as new administrator and delete existing administrator account);
Regarding claim 29, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 26, furthermore, HO et al. teaches the security system wherein the computing system is adapted to receive a request for creating the second user account from the first user account (note para. [0066], [0075]); and
wherein the computing system is adapted to create the second user account in response to receiving the request for creating the second user account (note para. [0066], [0075]: creating second user account)
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire in 3 (Three) months and 0 (Zero) days from the mailing date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will result in ABANDOMENT of the application (see 35 U.S.C 133, M.P.E.P 710.02(b)). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTO ABEDIN whose telephone number is 571-272-3551. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim, can be reached on 571-272-3804. The RightFax number for faxing directly to the examiner is 571-273-3551.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHANTO ABEDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights