CTNF 18/952,669 CTNF 83278 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is in response to the correspondence filed on 08/20/25. Claims 1-32 are still pending and have been considered below. Information Disclosure Statement Examiner notes that due to the number of references submitted for consideration, they have only been reviewed to the extent possible within the allowed time. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0035] and [0039] of the Specification should be amended to explicitly recite each and every referenced figure identifier (ie. “FIGS. 6A , 6B, 6C, 6D …”) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first type of location" throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that the preceding claim language appears to establish at least two separate and distinct instances of “a first type of location” (once in parent Claim 1 and again in Claim 4); thus, renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to which one the limitation in question should be in reference to. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Salvador (2016/0182565) . Claim 1: Salvador discloses a computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors [page 8, paragraph 0075]; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: receiving, via the one or more input devices, a sequence of one or more inputs that includes a request to perform an operation of a respective type (resource access request) [page 5, paragraph 0049]; and in response to receiving the sequence of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the operation is a first type of operation that was requested while the computer system was in a first type of location, initiating a process to perform the operation (enable access based on affirmative authentication by location-based authorization module) [page 5, paragraph 0051 | page 6, paragraph 0054]; and in accordance with a determination that the operation is the first type of operation that was requested while the computer system was in a second type of location that is different from the first type of location, forgoing initiating the process to perform the operation (access denied if outside the premise) [pages 5-6, paragraphs 0051-0052]. Claim 2: Salvador discloses the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to receiving the sequence of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the operation is a second type of operation that is different from the first type of operation, performing the operation without regard to whether the operation was requested while the computer system was in the first type of location or the second type of location (if no location-specific authentication is required, allows access) [page 8, paragraph 0073 | page 3, paragraph 0038]. Claim 3: Salvador discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein locations of the first type of location are determined based on a location history of the computer system (configured to store location coordinates within a location information log, location-specific rule can state a condition for rate of change that is allowed access) [page 6, paragraphs 0053 & 0061]. Claim 31: Salvador discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices, the one or more programs including instructions for: receiving, via the one or more input devices, a sequence of one or more inputs that includes a request to perform an operation of a respective type [page 5, paragraph 0049]; and in response to receiving the sequence of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the operation is a first type of operation that was requested while the computer system was in a first type of location, initiating a process to perform the operation [page 5, paragraph 0051 | page 6, paragraph 0054]; and in accordance with a determination that the operation is the first type of operation that was requested while the computer system was in a second type of location that is different from the first type of location, forgoing initiating the process to perform the operation [pages 5-6, paragraphs 0051-0052]. Claim 32: Salvador discloses a method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices: receiving, via the one or more input devices, a sequence of one or more inputs that includes a request to perform an operation of a respective type [page 5, paragraph 0049]; and in response to receiving the sequence of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the operation is a first type of operation that was requested while the computer system was in a first type of location, initiating a process to perform the operation [page 5, paragraph 0051 | page 6, paragraph 0054]; and in accordance with a determination that the operation is the first type of operation that was requested while the computer system was in a second type of location that is different from the first type of location, forgoing initiating the process to perform the operation [pages 5-6, paragraphs 0051-0052] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salvador (2016/0182565) in view of Neighbour et al. (2024/0137365) . Claim 21: Salvador discloses the computer system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first type of operation includes removing a trusted device. However, Neighbour et al. discloses a similar invention [page 1, paragraph 0007] and further discloses wherein the first type of operation includes removing a trusted device (authentication service may remove selected user device based upon various user activities/requests) [page 7, paragraphs 0056-0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Salvador with the additional features of Neighbour et al. , in order to improve security of the management of trusted user devices by monitoring and removing ones that are no longer considered trusted, as suggested by Neighbour et al. [page 1, paragraphs 0003-0004] . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-20 and 22-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Niimura (2013/0301073) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, 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. /EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/952,669 Page 2 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/952,669 Page 3 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/952,669 Page 4 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/952,669 Page 5 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/952,669 Page 6 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/952,669 Page 7 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/952,669 Page 8 Art Unit: 2435
Prosecution Insights