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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 7/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of non statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent App. 18/192,295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in each claim set relate to the same concept.
18/192,295
19/285,192
A mobile device comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
receiving a data capsule including camera data defining a photo image captured by the mobile device, wherein the data capsule includes information about circumstances of capture of the photo image by a camera of the mobile device;
assigning a first data tag to the camera data responsive to the data capsule including information about a first set of circumstances for the photo image, the first data tag identifying a first security level for the camera data;
assigning a second data tag to the camera data responsive to the data capsule including information about a second set of circumstances for the photo image, the second data tag identifying a second security level for the camera data; and
determining whether to permit an application to access the camera data based on whether the first data tag or the second data tag is assigned to the camera data.
A method, comprising:
determining, by a computing system, that an application accessed first data having a first tag identifying a first level of security;
receiving, by the computing system, an input requesting access, by the application, to second data; and
denying, by the computing system, access to the second data by the application based at least in part on the application having accessed the first data having the first tag.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent Pub. 2012/0054838) in view of Ganai (US Patent Pub. 2014/0108867).
As per claims 1, 9 and 17: Kim discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a computing system, that an application accessed first data having a first tag identifying a first level of security (Paragraph 150; determines if the security level of the content is set to a restricted level or an unrestricted level for the second user (S25). If the security level for access by the second user is set to unrestricted, access to the content is allowed (S26), and the second user may view the content. However, if the security level for access by the second user is set to restricted, the content is censored);
Kim does not specifically disclose receiving, by the computing system, an input requesting access, by the application, to second data; and denying, by the computing system, access to the second data by the application based at least in part on the application having accessed the first data having the first tag (See Ganai; Paragraph 27; Our dynamic taint analysis generally operates as follows. During runtime, it tags suspicious data--normally from an external input--propagates taint tag along data and control flow, and then checks if tagged data is used for potentially problematic locations (e.g., used for a target location of a jump instruction).
Therefore, it 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, having the teachings of Yeung and Vantalon in it’s entirety, to modify the technique of Yeung for reduce the rate of license validation requests to less than a threshold value by adopting Vantalon's teaching for contact the CA server to access the media if the initial rights and license exceed those provided during the bridge operation. The motivation would have been to improve software license management.
As per claims 2, 10 and 18: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning, by the computing system, a second tag to the application based at least in part on the application having accessed the first data having the first tag, the second tag identifying the first level of security (See Ganai; Paragraph 27; Our dynamic taint analysis generally operates as follows. During runtime, it tags suspicious data--normally from an external input--propagates taint tag along data and control flow, and then checks if tagged data is used for potentially problematic locations (e.g., used for a target location of a jump instruction); and
determining, by the computing system, that the second data has a third tag identifying a second level of security (See Ganai; Paragraph 27; claim 1);
wherein denying the access to the second data by the application is further based at least in part on a mismatch between the second tag and the third tag (See Ganai; Paragraph 28; tags all program inputs using unique IDs, including return values of system calls and data copied from kernel to user space (e.g., data read by a sys_read( )). Our runtime system propagates the tag along both data and control flow dependencies, then checks the tag on shared accesses (which are identified either by profiling or static analysis) and conditional branches. When the taint tag is propagated to shared accesses).
As per claims 3, 11 and 19: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the computing system, that the second data has a second tag identifying a second level of security;
wherein denying the access to the second data by the application is further based at least in part on a mismatch between the first tag and the second tag (See Ganai; Paragraph 28; tags all program inputs using unique IDs, including return values of system calls and data copied from kernel to user space (e.g., data read by a sys_read( )). Our runtime system propagates the tag along both data and control flow dependencies, then checks the tag on shared accesses (which are identified either by profiling or static analysis) and conditional branches. When the taint tag is propagated to shared accesses).
As per claims 4, 12 and 20: The method of claim 1, wherein: the application processes messages; wherein denying the access to the second data by the application is further based at least in part the first tag indicating the first data relates to a personal use and a second tag of the second data being indicative of a business use (Paragraph 135; registers tag information, such as information related to a user's face, and personal data including a phone number, an email address, or other information in an SNS site such as Twitter. When a second user visits the SNS site associated with the first user, the registered tag information may be stored on terminal belonging to the second user).
As per claims 5 and 13: The method of claim 4, wherein:
the first data is an identifier of an intended recipient of a message to be sent by the application; and the input is a request to add the second data as an attachment to a message that the application is to send to the intended recipient (Paragraph 134; security level may be associated with a user's tag information, such as a user's face, or a user's personal data, such as a user's phone number, user ID, email address, or home address)..
As per claims 6 and 14: The method of claim 1,
wherein: the application processes email; the first data is an email address; and the input is a request to add the second data as an attachment to an email that is addressed to the email address (Paragraph 134; security level may be associated with a user's tag information, such as a user's face, or a user's personal data, such as a user's phone number, user ID, email address, or home address).
As per claims 7 and 15: The method of claim 6, wherein:
denying the access to the second data by the application is further based at least in part the first tag indicating the email address relates to a personal use and a second tag of the second data being indicative of a business use (Paragraph 99; the security level is set to restricted or unrestricted. However, the security level is not limited to restricted and unrestricted, other security levels may be applied as necessary).
As per claims 8 and 16: The method of claim 7, further comprising:
assigning, by the computing system, a third tag to the email based at least in part on the application having accessed the first data having the first tag, the third tag being indicative of personal use (See Ganai; Paragraph 27; Our dynamic taint analysis generally operates as follows. During runtime, it tags suspicious data--normally from an external input--propagates taint tag along data and control flow, and then checks if tagged data is used for potentially problematic locations (e.g., used for a target location of a jump instruction);
wherein denying the access to the second data by the application is further based at least in part on a mismatch between the second tag and the third tag (See Ganai; Paragraph 27; Our dynamic taint analysis generally operates as follows. During runtime, it tags suspicious data--normally from an external input--propagates taint tag along data and control flow, and then checks if tagged data is used for potentially problematic locations (e.g., used for a target location of a jump instruction).
Relevant Prior Art References
The following prior art is cited as being of interest to the claimed invention but has not been applied in any of the current rejections.
Hay et al.- US Patent Publication 2020/0089595- the prior art teaches techniques for updating taint tags based on runtime behavior.
Hassanshahi et al.- US Patent Pub. 2019/0311131 - the prior art teaches techniques for dynamic taint analysis.
Gluck et al.- US Patent Pub. 2015/0121533 - the prior art teaches techniques for dynamic analysis interpreter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-1472. The examiner can normally be reached 730-330pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached at 5712705440. 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.
/ANTHONY D BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights