DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 1/15/2025.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are pending.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected.
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 .
Restriction
Group 1 comprising Claims 1-11 and 15-20 were elected.
Group 2 comprising Claims 12-14 were withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 positively recited “displaying a first interface” claim 2 further restricts claim 1 by “skipping displaying the first interface”. Both conditions cannot be true. Examiner is interpreting applicant’s intent to be a conditional limitation. Revision is required.
Claim 4 recites “or more” which should read “one or more”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “whern" should read “when”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (W.O. 2021036811), in view of Guo (W.O. 2012174742).
Regarding claim 1,
Luo discloses: A method, comprising:
installing, by an electronic device, a first application from an application market, wherein the first application corresponds to a permission configuration file, the permission configuration file indicates an (Luo [Pg. 7 (example two), Pg. 4 (example one)] teaches installing an app from an application market and various types of permissions corresponding to the app, the types of permissions include access permissions where the type of permissions needs to be indicated when an APP applies for listing on the market the market will review the permission application of the APP)
in response to the first application needing to access a file in the electronic device, requesting, by the first application, to apply for a first permission; (Luo [Pg. 7 (example two), Pg. 4 (example one)] teaches receiving a call operation corresponding to specific permissions for the application and applying for specific permissions)
displaying, by the electronic device, a first interface in response to the permission configuration file comprising the first permission, wherein the first interface is used to request a user to grant the first permission; and (Luo Pg. 4 (example one)] teaches displaying a user interface to a user which includes displaying a notification which includes a list of authorized permissions which a user can click to select a specific permission to allow the operation corresponding to the permission to be performed)
obtaining, by the first application, the first permission in response to a first operation in which the user agrees to grant the first permission. (Luo [Pg. 7-8 (example two), Pg. 4-5 (example one)] teaches that when a user clicks to select a specific permission that permission is granted (obtained) in response to the user clicking (agreeing to grant) that permission)
Luo does not explicitly disclose: access permission for a file type… application is capable of using the file type…
However, in the same field of endeavor Guo discloses: access permission for a file type… and
application is capable of using the file type… (Guo [Pg. 5 (embodiment 2), Pg. 6 (embodiment 3-4)] teaches access rights (permissions) for specific types of data (files) which an application is capable of using)
Luo and Guo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor Application permissions.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Luo and Guo before him or her, to modify the method of Luo to include the access permission corresponding to file types which an application is capable of using of Guo because it will improve security by setting access level according to data type.
The motivation for doing so would be [“Set the access level of the local data according to the storage location of the data, the data type”, which helps “prevent the local private data from being leaked to be the shared data in the network”] (Abstract, Embodiment 2 by Guo)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Luo and Guo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 15 recites limitations substantially similar in scope as claim 1 above, therefore, is also rejected under the same rationale set forth above. Additionally claim 14 discloses: An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, enable the electronic device to: (Luo [Pg. 2 (summary of the invention) teaches processor and memory for performing operations)
Regarding claims 2 and 16,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Luo additionally discloses: The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
skipping, by the electronic device, displaying the first interface in response to the permission configuration file not comprising the first permission. (Luo [Pg. 7 (example two)] teaches the displaying of unapplied permission switch is grayed out and cannot be clicked, or is not displayed)
Claims 3-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (W.O. 2021036811), in view of Guo (W.O. 2012174742) and in further view of Hoogerwerf (U.S. 20130179414).
Regarding claims 3 and 17,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Luo additionally discloses: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: installing, by the electronic device, a second application through the application market; and (Luo [Pg. 7 (example two), Pg. 4 (example one)] teaches the process is being performed for multiple applications (teaches second))
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: in response to the second application needing to access the file in the electronic device, accessing, by the second application, the file in the electronic device through a file picker provided by an operating system of the electronic device.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: in response to the second application needing to access the file in the electronic device, accessing, by the second application, the file in the electronic device through a file picker provided by an operating system of the electronic device. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0030-0032, 0034-0048, 0056-0072] teaches a file picker which is used to access files when such access needed)
Luo in view of Guo and Hoogerwerf are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor permissions related to applications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Luo in view of Guo and Hoogerwerf before him or her, to modify the method of Luo in view of Guo to include the file picker of Hoogerwerf because it will allow for specific files to be selected for access when access is needed.
The motivation for doing so would be [“provide for systems and/or methods for accessing and/or updating files by a first application in which the first application does not have direct accessibility to said file”] (Paragraph 0005 by Hoogerwerf)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Luo in view of Guo and Hoogerwerf to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 18,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 3,
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 3, wherein accessing, by the second application, the file in the electronic device through the file picker comprises:
displaying, by the electronic device, a second interface showing or more candidate files provided by the file picker;
receiving, by the electronic device, a second operation in which the user determines one or more target files from the one or more candidate files; and
obtaining, by the second application in response to the second operation, a permission to access the one or more target files.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: The method according to claim 3, wherein accessing, by the second application, the file in the electronic device through the file picker comprises: (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0030-0032, 0034-0048, 0056-0072] teaches a file picker which is used to access files when such access needed)
displaying, by the electronic device, a second interface showing or more candidate files provided by the file picker; (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0030-0032, 0041-0051, 0056-0072] teaches Picker module 116 presents a user interface 206 facilitating user selection of files for retrieval)
receiving, by the electronic device, a second operation in which the user determines one or more target files from the one or more candidate files; and (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0030-0032, 0048-0051, 0056-0070] The user is able to select one or more files from those various other applications, in response to which the selected one or more files are retrieved into the particular application the user is using)
obtaining, by the second application in response to the second operation, a permission to access the one or more target files. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0030-0032, 0041-0051, 0056-0072] If the user selects the option to permit access (e.g., which is illustrated as selecting the Permit Access button using a cursor control device), the picker module 116 may permit access to the requested file 110)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Hoogerwerf for similar reasons as cited in claim 3.
Regarding claims 5 and 19,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 3,
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 3, wherein: the first application is a management application that relies on accessing a plurality of file types in the electronic device to implement a main function of the management application; and the second application is a non-management application that does not rely on accessing the plurality of file types in the electronic device to implement a main function of the non-management application.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: The method according to claim 3, wherein: the first application is a management application that relies on accessing a plurality of file types in the electronic device to implement a main function of the management application; and (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0030-0043, 0045-0068] teaches applications which managing specific functions where managing those specific functions is dependent on accessing specific types of files)
the second application is a non-management application that does not rely on accessing the plurality of file types in the electronic device to implement a main function of the non-management application. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0041-0051, 0056-0072] teaches applications that have functions which are not related to management and do not rely on accessing specific file types such as word processor, game, media player, dictionary, ect.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Hoogerwerf for similar reasons as cited in claim 3.
Regarding claims 6 and 20,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the file in the electronic device is stored in a file management module, and the method further comprises: accessing, by the first application, a target file through a first interface of the file management module, wherein a file type of the target file is the same as a file type associated with the first permission.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the file in the electronic device is stored in a file management module, and the method further comprises: accessing, by the first application, a target file through a first interface of the file management module, wherein a file type of the target file is the same as a file type associated with the first permission. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0051, 0056-0072] teaches the application accesses a targeted file using an interface where the type of file targeted is the same type of file for which the permissions were granted)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Hoogerwerf for similar reasons as cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 7,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the permission configuration file comprises at least one of the following: a permission to access or operate a picture/video file, a permission to access or operate an audio file, or a permission to access or operate a document file.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the permission configuration file comprises at least one of the following: a permission to access or operate a picture/video file, a permission to access or operate an audio file, or a permission to access or operate a document file. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0051, 0056-0072] teaches that the permission granted can include permission for text (document) files, image files, video files, audio files, combinations thereof, and so forth)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Hoogerwerf for similar reasons as cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 8,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 7,
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 7, wherein: the permission to access or operate the picture/video file comprises a permission to read, edit, delete, or create the picture/video file;
the permission to access or operate the audio file comprises a permission to read, edit, delete, or create the audio file; and
the permission to access or operate the document file comprises a permission to read, edit, delete, or create the document file.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: The method according to claim 7, wherein: the permission to access or operate the picture/video file comprises a permission to read, edit, delete, or create the picture/video file; (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0051, 0055-0072] teaches that permission can include reading or editing image/videos)
the permission to access or operate the audio file comprises a permission to read, edit, delete, or create the audio file; and (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0051, 0056-0072] teaches that permission can include reading or editing audio)
the permission to access or operate the document file comprises a permission to read, edit, delete, or create the document file. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0051, 0056-0072] teaches that permission can include reading or editing documents)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Hoogerwerf for similar reasons as cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 9,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the file in the electronic device is stored in a corresponding preset directory based on the file type.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the file in the electronic device is stored in a corresponding preset directory based on the file type. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0053, 0055-0072] teaches organizing, managing, and/or storing file(s) by type)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Hoogerwerf for similar reasons as cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first application does not have a permission to create a new directory or a new file outside a preset directory that already exists in the electronic device.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first application does not have a permission to create a new directory or a new file outside a preset directory that already exists in the electronic device. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0051, 0056-0072] teaches presenting a user a choice of existing storage locations (directory) where locations that do not exist are not available)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Hoogerwerf for similar reasons as cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11,
Luo in view of Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Luo in view of Guo does not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the file in the electronic device is stored in a file management module, and the method further comprises:
modifying, by the electronic device through the first application, metadata information of a target file stored in the file management module, wherein the file type of the target file is the same as a file type associated with the first permission; and
in response to the electronic device accessing the target file through a second application, obtaining, by the second application, metadata information that is of the target file and that is modified by the electronic device through the first application, wherein the second application is different from the first application.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoogerwerf discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the file in the electronic device is stored in a file management module, and the method further comprises: modifying, by the electronic device through the first application, metadata information of a target file stored in the file management module, wherein the file type of the target file is the same as a file type associated with the first permission; and (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0051, 0056-0072, 0084-0088] teaches changing information about a file including name/description (metadata) and teaches the application accesses a targeted file using an interface where the type of file targeted is the same type of file for which the permissions were granted)
in response to the electronic device accessing the target file through a second application, obtaining, by the second application, metadata information that is of the target file and that is modified by the electronic device through the first application, wherein the second application is different from the first application. (Hoogerwerf [Abstract, 0018-0032, 0034-0051, 0056-0069, 0073-0088] teaches obtaining, by a different application, metadata information (including the previously updated information) of a target file. The obtaining and the updating can be performed by different applications)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Hoogerwerf for similar reasons as cited in claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Safa 2009-12-23 (U.S. 20100153671 ) teaches a system and method to securing a computer system from software viruses and other malicious code by intercepting attempts by the malicious code to write data to a storage medium. The invention intercepts the write access requests made by programs and verifies that the program is authorized to write before letting the write proceed. Authorization is determined by using the identity of the program as a query element into a database where permission values are stored. Depending on the presence or value of the permission value, write access is permitted or denied. Permission values can be set by the user, downloaded from a central server, or loaded into the central server by a group of users in order to collectively determine a permission value. The interception code can operate in kernel mode.
Liu 2021-09-28 (U.S. 20220019645) teaches a permission configuration method includes: receiving a first input performed by a user on a first object and a second object, where the first object is an object that indicates a first application on a first interface, and the second object is an object that indicates a second application or a tartlet function on a second interface; and displaying, on the first interface in response to the first input, a target permission set used to configure a permission for the first application, where the target permission set is an intersection set between a first permission set and a second permission set, the first permission set is a permission set of the first application, and the second permission set is a permission set of the second application or the target function; and the first interface is different from the second interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A CARNES whose telephone number is (571)272-4378. 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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571) 272-4219. 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.
THOMAS A. CARNES
Examiner
Art Unit 2436
/THOMAS A CARNES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights