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
1. This action is responsive to communication filed on: 17 June 2026 with acknowledgement of an original application filed on 13 December 2024.
2. Claims 1-20, are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 18, are independent claims. Claims 1, 4, 10, and 18-19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 17 June 2026 have been fully considered however they are not persuasive when noted below. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn due to the claim amendments.
I) In response to Applicant’s argument beginning on page 10, “Applicant makes no representation that the cited references are prior art”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. The Applicant’s filing date is 13 December 2024. All the references utilized in the rejection below and in the previous Office Action have a filing at least one year prior to the Applicant’s filing date. In addition, all of the cited references are directed to mobile devices, sensors on mobile phones, as well as security for mobile devices. Therefore, they are all prior art references.
II) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 10, “Claim 1, as amended, stands rejected under § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Keith in view of Adams…It is respectfully submitted that neither the cited portions of Keith and Adams, nor elsewhere in these references, discloses, or in any way suggests the subject matter of amended claim 1”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. The combination of Keith and Adams teaches/suggests all limitations in amended claim 1. The Examiner notes:
For the limitation: “detect, based on sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the mobile device, a snatch event indicative of the mobile device being physically taken from a user when the mobile device is in an unlocked state” is taught in Keith/‘790 col. 13, lines 31-60, note Keith/’790 states: “Detecting the actions/situations is able to implemented in any manner such as an accelerometer to determine that the phone is no longer moving which would indicate that it was put down. Similarly, sensors on the phone are able to determine that multiple hands are holding the phone which would indicate that the phone is being handed to someone else…For example, an accelerometer of the user device is able to be used to determine shaking/trembling, and a microphone of the device (in conjunction with a voice analysis application) is able to determine if the user’s voice is different (e.g., shaky/trembling). In another example, the camera of the user device is able to detect additional people near the user … (e.g., face analysis with cross-comparison of a criminal database)” the underlined are examples of sensors of the mobile device / in addition note, “As described herein, a user device (e.g., mobile phone) is able to be used for ID proofing, where the user device recognizes a user based on various actions/input/behavioral/usage patterns…In some embodiments, potential user changes are detected. For example if a user logs in” is interpreted equivalent to an unlocked state.
For the limitation: “automatically attempt a biometric authentication of the user to validate, the snatch event” is taught in Adam/’406 the Abstract, col. 2, lines 1-9 and col. 8, lines 21-36. Note the Examiner interprets a “detecting when an electronic device (such as a mobile phone) has been stolen or is otherwise being used by someone other than an authorized user of the device equivalent to “the snatch event” / In addition “automatically attempt a biometric authentication of the user to validate” is interpreted equivalent to performing a security action such as biometric verification.
For the limitation: “responsive to a failed biometric authentication, transition the mobile device to a locked state” is shown in Adam/’406 col. 8, lines 37-40, note Adam/’406 states “Upon successfully responding to the security action, the user can be granted access to at last some level of functionality of the device; otherwise, the user is granted no access to the device”, the underlined is interpreted equivalent to transitioning the mobile device to a locked state.
For the limitation: “response to a successful biometric authentication, maintain the mobile device in the unlocked state” is disclosed in Adam/’406 col. 8, lines 37-40, note Adam/’406 states “Upon successfully responding to the security action, the user can be granted access to at last some level of functionality of the device” is interpreted equivalent to the argued limitation.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
III) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 11, “Keith describes a trust-score-based behavioral system in which a “hijack” phase “analyzes possible change of possession of the device” (Keith, col. 13, lines 31-60. When a handoff or pickup is detected…The Office relies on Keith col. 13, lines 31-60 for “detect a snatch event indicative of the mobile device being physically taken from a user”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. Keith/’790 teaches detecting a snatch event in col. 13, lines 31-60. The Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
IV) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 11, “The Office acknowledges that “automatically attempt a biometric authentication of the user to validate the snatch event” is not explicitly taught in ’790 and relies on Adams for this limitation…Adams describes that “the device can attempt to verify the current user of the device through any number of verification methods, such as through biometric verification…Adams also describes that “a security action can be performed with the confidence value does not at least meet at least one confidence threshold” (Adams, Abstract). The biometric verification described in Adams is one of several security action performed when a confidence value is low. Claim 1, as amended, does not recite performing a security action in response to a low confidence value. Rather, claim recites “automatically attempt a biometric authentication is performed specifically to determine whether a detected snatch event is valid”
The Examiner disagrees with argument. The combination of Keith/’790 and Adams/’406 teaches detecting a snatch event, see Keith/’790 col. 13, lines 31-60. As well as automatically performing biometric authentication is taught in Adam/’406 the Abstract, col. 2, lines 1-9 and col. 8, lines 21-36. Note the Examiner interprets a “detecting when an electronic device (such as a mobile phone) has been stolen or is otherwise being used by someone other than an authorized user of the device equivalent to “the snatch event” / In addition “automatically attempt a biometric authentication of the user to validate” is interpreted equivalent to performing a security action such as biometric verification. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
V) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 11, “Further, claim 1 recites “responsive to a successful biometric authentication, maintain the mobile in the unlocked state…Neither Keith nor Adams, alone or in combination, disclose or suggests maintaining the mobile device in an unlocked state responsive to a successful authentication performed to validate a detected snatch event”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. The combination teaches the argued limitation above, see Adam/’406 col. 8, lines 37-40, note Adam/’406 states “Upon successfully responding to the security action, the user can be granted access to at last some level of functionality of the device”. This is interpreted equivalent to an unlocked state. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
VI) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 11, “The Office states that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because detecting when a device is stolen is tantamount in preventing loss by requiring some type of verification action” (Office Action, p. 4). However, this rationale does not account for the specific use of biometric authentication “to validate the snatch event” as recited by claim 1, where a successful authentication results in maintaining the unlocked state rather than granting access after a security lockout”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument for multiple reasons. First, in addition to the “one of ordinary skill in the art…” The Office Action states that the Adam/‘406 patent is referenced in the Keith/‘709 patent. This is also another reason to combine the references. Second, the Examiner notes both references utilize biometric authentication see Keith//’709 col. 9, lines 22-36 and col. 21, lines 31-43. Also please review Adam/’406 the Abstract, col. 2, lines 1-9 and col. 8, lines 21-36. The Adam/’406 reference teaches performing a security action when a mobile device is suspected of being stolen (i.e. snatched). This security action includes performing biometric authentication. This meets the limitation argued as well provides a reason to combine the references. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
VII) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 12, “Claims 2-9 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim above …those additional references are not seen to add anything of significance. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 2-9 be withdraw”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. Claims 2-9 are rejected below in addition they are dependent on a properly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
VIII) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 12, “Claim 10, as amended, stands rejected under § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Whaley in view of Adams…claim 10 is amended to recite “detect, using a machine-learning model trained to recognize patterns in sensor data collected by one or more sensors that correlate to snatch events, a snatch event indicative of the system being physically taken from a user when the system is in an unlocked state.” It is respectfully submitted that neither the cited portions of Whaley and Adams, nor elsewhere in these references discloses, or in any way suggests the subject matter of amended claim 10…and claim 10 further recites “automatically attempt a biometric authentication of the user to validate the snatch event when the execution of the application activity is stopped or paused,” a further feature not disclosed or suggested by any cited references”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. Whaley/’025 teaches the amended limitation, “detect, using a machine-learning model trained to recognize patterns in sensor data collected by one or more sensors that correlate to snatch events, a snatch event indicative of the system being physically taken from a user when the system is in an unlocked state”, see Whaley/’025 col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 8, lines 15-61, which are copied below.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note above, Whaley/’025 uses an agent running on a smartphone to collect sensor data and communicates with a Cloud server and utilizes a machine-learning process to determine whether the sensor data is associated with the user.
Note on the next page Whaley/’025 teaches the system can be used to determine whether a user’s smartphone has been stolen (i.e. snatched). The system can detect a state change, “such as a smartphone waking up”, the Examiner interprets this feature of detecting a ‘state change’ equivalent to being in “an unlocked state”. The signal-processing operations performed with machine-learning model techniques to generate a security score equivalent to “machine-learning model trained to recognize patterns…that correlate snatch events”.
PNG
media_image2.png
914
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 10 is maintained.
IX) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 13, “Claims 11-17 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 10 and such the comments directed above to that claim apply equally to these claims…”
The Examiner disagrees with the argument and notes all claims 10-17 have been rejected below.
X) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 13, “Claim 18, as amended, stands rejected under § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Keith in view of Adams…Claim 18 recites subject matter similar to claims 1 and 10 and is thus patentable over the cited references for at least the same reasons discussed above…Claims 19-20 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 18…”.
The Examiner disagrees with the argument and notes claims 18-20 have been rejected below.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith Jr. U.S. Patent No. 12,341,790 (hereinafter ‘790) in view of Adams et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,706,406 (hereinafter ‘406).
As to independent claim 1, “A mobile device, comprising: at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the mobile device to: detect, based on sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the mobile device, a snatch event indicative of the mobile device being physically taken from a user when the mobile device is in an unlocked state” is taught in ‘790 col. 13, lines 31-60, note ‘790 states “Detecting the actions/situations is able to implemented in any manner such as an accelerometer to determine that the phone is no longer moving which would indicate that it was put down. Similarly, sensors on the phone are able to determine that multiple hands are holding the phone which would indicate that the phone is being handed to someone else…For example, an accelerometer of the user device is able to be used to determine shaking/trembling, and a microphone of the device (in conjunction with a voice analysis application) is able to determine if the user’s voice is different (e.g., shaky/trembling). In another example, the camera of the user device is able to detect additional people near the user … (e.g., face analysis with cross-comparison of a criminal database)” the underlined are examples of sensors of the mobile device / in addition note, “As described herein, a user device (e.g., mobile phone) is able to be used for ID proofing, where the user device recognizes a user based on various actions/input/behavioral/usage patterns…In some embodiments, potential user changes are detected. For example if a user logs in” is interpreted equivalent to an unlocked statethe following is not explicitly taught in ‘790:
“automatically attempt a biometric authentication of the user to validate the snatch event” however ‘406 teaches performing a security action such as requiring biometric verification Abstract col. 2, lines 1-9 and col. 8, lines 21-36;
“responsive to a failed biometric authentication, transition the mobile device to a locked state; and responsive to a successful biometric authentication, maintain the mobile device in the unlocked state” however ‘406 teaches allowing or denying access (i.e. unlocked or locked) in response to the authentication results in col. 8 lines 37-40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of device behavior analytics taught in ‘790 to include a means to automatically perform biometric authentication and allow or deny access (i.e. lock or unlock) based on the results of the authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because detecting when a device is stolen is tantamount in preventing loss by requiring some type of verification action see ‘406 col. 1, lines 6 et seq. In addition, the ‘406 is cited in the ‘790 patent.
As to dependent claim 5, “The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the snatch event is detected in response to identifying a change in sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the mobile device that satisfies a threshold for suspected snatch events” is taught in ‘790 col. 13, lines 31-60.
As to dependent claim 6, “The mobile device of claim 5, wherein the sensor data comprises accelerometer data and the threshold for suspected snatch events corresponds to a change in acceleration of the mobile device” is shown in ‘790 col. 13, lines 31-60.
As to dependent claim 7, “The mobile device of claim 5, wherein the sensor data comprises gyroscope data and the threshold for suspected ‘790 col. 42, lines 50-67.
As to dependent claim 9, “The mobile device of claim 5, wherein the threshold for suspected snatch events is different than at least one other threshold that is used to detect at least one of a drop event, a fall event, or a user gesture event” is taught in ‘790 col. 15, line 46 through col. 16 line 26, and col. 17 lines 29-65.
As to independent claim 18, “A method performed by a mobile device, the method comprising: detecting a snatch event indicative of the mobile device being physically taken from a user based on sensor data collected by one or mor sensors of the mobile device” is taught in ‘790 col. 13, lines 31-60, note ‘790 states “Detecting the actions/situations is able to implemented in any manner such as an accelerometer to determine that the phone is no longer moving which would indicate that it was put down. Similarly, sensors on the phone are able to determine that multiple hands are holding the phone which would indicate that the phone is being handed to someone else…For example, an accelerometer of the user device is able to be used to determine shaking/trembling, and a microphone of the device (in conjunction with a voice analysis application) is able to determine if the user’s voice is different (e.g., shaky/trembling). In another example, the camera of the user device is able to detect additional people near the user … (e.g., face analysis with cross-comparison of a criminal database)” the underlined are examples of sensors of the mobile device;
“determining that an application activity that uses or is triggered by sensor data is executing at the mobile device when the mobile device is in an unlocked state” is shown in ‘790 col. 13, lines 31-60, note “As described herein, a user device (e.g., mobile phone) is able to be used for ID proofing, where the user device recognizes a user based on various actions/input/behavioral/usage patterns…In some embodiments, potential user changes are detected. For example, if a user logs in” is interpreted equivalent to an unlocked state;the following is not explicitly taught in ‘790:
“responsive to determining that execution of the application activity is stopped or paused, automatically attempting a biometric authentication of the user of the mobile device to validate the snatch event” however ‘406 teaches performing a security action such as requiring biometric verification Abstract col. 2, lines 1-9 and col. 8, lines 21-36;
“and responsive to a failed biometric authentication, transitioning the mobile device to a locked state” however ‘406 teaches allowing or denying access (i.e. unlocked or locked) in response to the authentication results in col. 8 lines 37-40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of device behavior analytics taught in ‘790 to include a means to automatically perform biometric authentication and allow or deny access (i.e. lock or unlock) based on the results of the authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because detecting when a device is stolen is tantamount in preventing loss by requiring some type of verification action see ‘406 col. 1, lines 6 et seq. In addition, the ‘406 is cited in the ‘790 patent.
As to dependent claim 20, “The method of claim 18, further comprising: determining a second application activity that uses or is triggered by the sensor data is executing at the mobile device when the mobile device is in the unlocked state” is taught in ‘790 co. 13, lines 31-60;
“responsive to determining execution of the second application activity is stopped or paused, automatically attempting the biometric authentication of the user to validate a second snatch event indicative of the mobile device being physically taken from the user; and responsive to a successful biometric authentication, refraining from transitioning the mobile device to the locked state” is shown in ‘406 the Abstract, col. 2, lines 1-9, and col. 8, lines 21-40
6. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith Jr. U.S. Patent No. 12,341,790 (hereinafter ‘790) in view of Adams et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,706,406 (hereinafter ‘406) in further view of Beiz et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,798,106 (hereinafter ‘106).
As to dependent claim 2, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘790 and ‘406: “The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the biometric authentication includes a face authentication” however ‘106 teaches utilizing a biometric identifier such as faces in col. 17, line 56 through col. 18 line 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of device behavior analytics taught in ‘790 and ‘406 to include a means to utilize face authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because current methodologies and technologies associated with authenticating user may be modified to enhance quality of service. In addition, the ‘406 is cited in the ‘106 patent.
As to dependent claim 3, “The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the biometric authentication includes an iris scan authentication” is taught in ‘106 col. 17, line 56 through col. 18 line 7.
7. Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith Jr. U.S. Patent No. 12,341,790 (hereinafter ‘790) in view of Adams et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,706,406 (hereinafter ‘406) in further view of Whaley U.S. Patent No. 10,867,025 (hereinafter ‘025).
As to dependent claim 4, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘790 and ‘406: “The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the snatch event is detected by a machine-learning model trained to recognize patterns in sensor data that correlate to snatch events” however ‘025 teaches utilize machine learning to determine if sensor data is associated with a user as well as determining if a user’s smartphone has been stolen (i.e. snatch event) in col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 8, lines 14-61.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of device behavior analytics taught in ‘790 and ‘406 to include a means to utilize the sensor with machine learning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because improvements are needed with the current authentication method see ‘025 col. 1, line 41 through col. 2, line 5. In addition, the ‘406 patent is cited in the ‘025 patent.
As to dependent claim 19, “The method of claim 18, wherein the snatch event is detected using a machine-learning model trained to recognize patterns in the sensor data that correlate to snatch events” is taught in ‘025 col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 8, lines 14-61.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith Jr. U.S. Patent No. 12,341,790 (hereinafter ‘790) in view of Adams et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,706,406 (hereinafter ‘406) in further view of Davis, III et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,095,746 (hereinafter ‘746).
As to dependent claim 8, Although ‘406 and ‘790 teach the use of a barometer, see ‘406 col. 9, lines 30-3 and ‘790 col. 26, lines 37-40, since the term “change in elevation” is not utilized, it could be argued the following is not explicitly taught in ‘790 and ‘406”: “The mobile device of claim 5, wherein the sensor data comprises barometer data and the threshold for suspected snatch events corresponds to a change in an elevation of the mobile device based on ambient air pressure measurements included in the barometer data” however ‘746 teaches detecting the change in altitude in col. 8, lines 39-65.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of device behavior analytics taught in ‘790 and ‘406 to include a means to utilize the sensors to detect changes in altitude. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because as mobile devices transferred to others via second hand transfers sensitive information needs to be protected see ‘746 col. 1, lines 15-21. In addition, the ‘406 patent is cited in the ‘746 patent.
9. Claims 10-11, 13, 15, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whaley U.S. Patent No. 10,867,025 (hereinafter ‘025) in view of Adams et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,706,406 (hereinafter ‘406).
As to independent claim 10, “A system comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the system to: detect, using a machine-learning model trained to recognize patterns in sensor data collected by one or more sensors that correlate to snatch events, a snatch event indicative of the system being physically taken from a user when the system is in an unlocked state; determine whether an application activity that uses or is triggered by the sensor data is executing at the at least one processor” is taught in ‘025 col. 5, lines 56-67 and col. 8, lines 15-61;the following is not explicitly taught in ‘025:
“automatically attempt a biometric authentication of the user to validate the snatch event when execution of the application activity is stopped or paused; and responsive to a failed biometric authentication, transition the system to a locked state” however ‘406 teaches performing a security action such as requiring biometric verification Abstract col. 2, lines 1-9 and col. 8, lines 21-40;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of opportunistically collecting sensor data from a mobile phone to facilitate user identification taught in ‘025 to include a means to automatically perform biometric authentication and allow or deny access (i.e. lock or unlock) based on the results of the authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because detecting when a device is stolen is tantamount in preventing loss by requiring some type of verification action see ‘406 col. 1, lines 6 et seq. In addition, the ‘406 is cited in the ‘025 patent.
As to dependent claim 11, “The system of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to maintain the system in the unlocked state in response to a successful biometric authentication.” Is taught in ‘406 col. 8, lines 37-40.
As to dependent claim 13, “The system of claim 10, wherein the sensor data comprises one or more of accelerometer data, gyroscope data, and barometer data” is shown in ‘406 col. 2, lines 10-15.
As to dependent claim 15, “The system of claim 10, wherein the application activity is triggered by the sensor data in response to another application or system service outputting an indication of a user gesture event inferred from the sensor data” is disclosed in ‘025 col. 2, lines 9-23.
As to dependent claim 17, “The system of claim 16, wherein the biometric authentication is automatically attempted in response to the indication of the snatch event being cleared from the at least one memory” is taught in ‘406 col. 2, lines 6-9 and col. 8, lines 21-40.
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whaley U.S. Patent No. 10,867,025 (hereinafter ‘025) in view of Adams et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,706,406 (hereinafter ‘406) in further view of Beiz et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,798,106 (hereinafter ‘106).
As to dependent claim 12, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘025 and ‘406: “The system of claim 10, wherein the biometric authentication includes at least one of a face authentication or an iris scan authentication” however ‘406 teaches utilizing a biometric identifier such as faces and iris scan in col. 17, line 56 through col. 18 line 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of opportunistically collecting sensor data from a mobile phone to facilitate user identification taught in ‘025 and ‘406 to include a means to utilize face and/or iris scan for authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because current methodologies and technologies associated with authenticating user may be modified to enhance quality of service. In addition, the ‘406 is cited in the ‘106 patent.
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whaley U.S. Patent No. 10,867,025 (hereinafter ‘025) in view of Adams et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,706,406 (hereinafter ‘406) in further view of Keith Jr. U.S. Patent No. 12,341,790 (hereinafter ‘790).
As to dependent claim 14, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘’025 and ‘406: “The system of claim 10, wherein the application activity uses the sensor data is configured to respond to user gesture events inferred from the sensor data, wherein the user gesture events comprises at least one of a device shake gesture, a device chop gesture, a device twist gesture, a device lift gesture, or a device flip gesture” however ‘790 teaches determining user gestures in col. 13, lines 31-60, col. 15, line 46 through col. 16 line 26, and col. 17 lines 29-65.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of opportunistically collecting sensor data from a mobile phone to facilitate user identification taught in ‘025 and ‘406 to include a means to detect user gestures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because security is paramount see ‘406 col. 1, lines 24 et seq. In addition, the ‘406 is cited in the ‘025 patent.
12. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whaley U.S. Patent No. 10,867,025 (hereinafter ‘025) in view of Adams et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,706,406 (hereinafter ‘406) in further view of Sung U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0086672 (hereinafter ‘672).
As to dependent claim 16, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘025 and ‘406: “The system of claim 10, wherein an indication of the snatch event is flagged in the at least one memory when the application activity is executing, and the indication of the snatch event is cleared from the at least one memory when the application activity is stopped or paused” however ‘672 teaches setting a stolen flag in memory when a portable device is believed to be stolen in paragraphs 7 and 23-28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of opportunistically collecting sensor data from a mobile phone to facilitate user identification taught in ‘025 and ‘406 to include a means to set a snatch event (i.e. stolen) flag in memory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to increase the security of portable devices see ‘672 paragraphs 4-5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/ELLEN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 25 August 2026
Prosecution Insights