DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment file 08 September 2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13-15, 18-20. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending.
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract overcomes the abstract objection of 08 June 2026.Therefore, the abstract objection of 08 June 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 3 overcomes the claim objection of 08 June 2026. Therefore, the claim objection of 08 June 2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 10 and 18 overcomes the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 08 June 2026. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 08 June 2026 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Abstract and Claim(s):
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08 September 2026, with respect to abstract objection and claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The abstract objection and claim objection of 08 September 2026 have been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b):
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08 September 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 5 USC 112(b) rejection of 08 September 2026 has been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments filed 08 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks:
Claim 1 as amended recites "in response to receiving a permission optimization operation performed by the user, performing a plurality of operations" comprising setting authorization manners for multiple permissions across multiple applications. Applicant's claim language reflects a user-initiated operation that causes, as a unified response, the device to perform a plurality of selective changes to multiple application-permission pairs.
Yuan as-applied does not appear to disclose such operation. The Examiner maps the claimed limitation by aggregating three independent, disconnected events from Yuan: (1) an automatic type-matching rejection of the weather app's camera permission at install time (Yuan, paragraphs 0128-0129); (2) a runtime, scenario-based rejection of the map app's camera permission when the app requests the camera while in a positioning scenario (Yuan, paragraphs 0141 and 0145); and (3) a separate install or runtime decision regarding WeChat's camera permission (Yuan, paragraph 0110).
Applicant’s support:
Yuan's events do not appear to be connected to each other; each arise from its own triggering circumstance at its own time. The weather app decision is an automatic determination by the permission service during installation. The map app decision is triggered by the map app's own permission request during runtime, not by a user optimization action. The WeChat decision is yet another independent event. Further, the Examiner's citation to Yuan paragraph 0109 describes how the permission service generally operates during app installation. But the installation-triggered permission service does not appear to react to a user-initiated optimization action, much less an event that triggers a plurality of operations across multiple applications in a single response.
As such, Yuan's collective operations referenced above do not appear to be responsive to a common "permission optimization operation" and therefore cannot be read on Applicant's in response to receiving a permission optimization operation performed by the user, performing a plurality of operations comprising setting an authorization manner of the first permission of the second application from a first manner to a second manner, and setting an authorization manner of the second permission of the second application from a third manner to a fourth manner, and setting an authorization manner of the first permission of the third application from a fifth manner to a sixth manner as now recited in Applicant's claim 1 as-amended.
Song is applied for counting and tracking permission usage and notifying users of
excessive permissions (Song, paragraphs 0110, 0117-0119). However, Song is silent as to a user- initiated optimization operation that causes the device to perform a plurality of operations to set authorization manners for multiple permissions across multiple applications. As such, Song does not cure this deficiency noted in Yuan.
Examiner’s remarks:
The claims do not provide a narrow limitation that defines permission optimization. The specification further does not provide algorithms as to how the optimization is achieved. Therefore, the examiner has applied the broadest reasonable interpretation and interpreted permission optimization as merely pre-set permissions by an application, initiated by user, for one or more applications that reduces[optimizes the usage] system resource consumption and security risk of user privacy leakage. Paragraph 109 discloses the permission service may pre-register one or more application permissions for each application at the application layer. The user is further allowed to set permission settings for each application, wherein the WeChat is provided as an example and this example can be applied to multiple applications. Paragraphs 12-13 reveal that first notification is displayed to the user corresponding to user scenario. After the electronic device displays a first notification in the second interface, the method further includes: If the electronic device detects that the user opens the first notification, the electronic device displays a settings interface for managing an application permission. The user can manually manage application permissions in the settings interface. Paragraph 7 discloses when running the first application, the electronic device may allow or reject, with reference to a currently displayed interface, the first application to use an application permission, instead of allowing the application to randomly use an application permission after granting the application permission to the application, to reduce system resource consumption and a security risk of user privacy leakage, and improve user experience. Furthermore, the limitation of “performing a plurality of operations…” does not require the limitations “setting an authorization manner” to occur concurrently or in a timely manner. Therefore, the examiner maintains that Yuan in view of Song teaches the limitations.
Additionally, Schieman teaches in paragraph 12 and Figure 2 that a user can both view how many times applications has accessed a particular resource and change the access permission of the particular resource by the application in the same screen. Therefore, a user can set the permission in view of the access information and make an informed selection.
Applicant’s remarks:
Additionally, claim 1 as amended recites that the first user interface comprises "a
simultaneous display of' the access times of the first, second, and third applications to the first permission.”
Neither Yuan as-applied nor Song teaches displaying, on a common user interface, a
simultaneous display of permission access counts for multiple applications to a same permission. Yuan and Song at best describe a patchwork of individual notifications for separate applications at separate times. The Applicant's claimed first user interface provides a unified, simultaneous display that gives a user a holistic understanding of how various applications are behaving, which better enables the user to decide whether to perform such a batch optimization operation.
The remaining references fail to cure the deficiencies noted above in Yuan and Song. As such, Applicant submits that claim 1 as-amended is patentable.
In addition, each of the remaining claims depends on claim 1, and therefore are also patentable over the relied upon references. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that application is in condition for allowance and respectfully requests withdrawal of all rejections.
Examiner’s remarks:
Applicant’s arguments above pertaining to the amended limitation of “a simultaneous display of' the access times of the first, second, and third applications to the first permission” recited in the independent claims 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al US 20210390171 (hereinafter Yuan), in view of Song et al US 20220309187 (hereinafter Song), and in further view of Schieman et al US 20170235469 (hereinafter Scheiman).
As to claim 1, Yuan teaches an electronic device (Figure 1 shows the schematic of an electronic device, see paragraph 27), comprising:
one or more processors (Figure 1, reference number 110 “Processor”; paragraph 48 discloses the electronic device includes a processor); and
a memory (Figure 1, reference number 121/120 “Internal memory”/ “External Memory” and paragraph 52); coupled to the one or more processors (Figure 1, reference number 110 “Processor”; paragraph 48 ) and configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to be configured to ( paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
display, by the electronic device, a first user interface, wherein the first user interface comprises a first access times of a first application to a first permission (Figure 3(a) shows the display ,by the electronic device, a first user interface of first access occurrence/time of the first application WeChat to first permission of obtaining location data, reading address book, using the camera, and/or use the microphone. Paragraph 109 also discloses the WeChat application records one or more application permissions required for running the WeChat application), a second access times of a second application to the first permission (paragraph 111 further discloses that similarly to paragraph 109 for the WeChat Application, each application will register a corresponding application permission in the permission service. This is done by displaying an interface of second access occurrence/times of a second application to the first permission. Figure 4(b) and paragraph 128 show first access time/occurrence for the weather application), a third access times of a third application to the first permission (paragraph 111 further discloses that similarly to paragraph 109 for the WeChat Application, each application will register a corresponding application permission in the permission service. This is done by displaying an interface of second access occurrence/times of a second application to the first permission. Figure 9(b) and paragraph 145 show first access time/occurrence for the map application), and a first prompt information, wherein the first prompt information indicates that a privacy risk exists (Figure 8, reference number 701 and paragraphs 141 and 145 disclose prompt indicating risk exist for the map application using the camera); and in response to receiving a permission optimization operation performed by a user (paragraph 109 reveals that the permission service pre-register one or more application permissions for each application. For each application, the permission service displays to a user, one or more application permissions to be registered. The WeChat application is used as an example in the description, but the example can apply to the different applications of the electronic device), performing a plurality of operations comprising setting an authorization manner of the first permission of the second application from a first manner to a second manner (paragraph 128 discloses for the weather app, permissions 1 to the permission 3 is set for the weather type, but permission type 4 does not need to be used when the weather App is running. Therefore, the permission service automatically reject to register the permission 4 for the weather app. The rejection of the camera is first permission/ second manner), and setting an authorization manner of the second permission of the second application from a third manner to a fourth manner (paragraph 129 further discloses when the mobile phone identifies that the permission 4 requested by the weather application is an improper application permission, the mobile phone may display the permission 4 in a dialog box. The mobile phone prompts the user that a security risk of granting permission 4 is high and it is recommended for the user to not grant the permission 4 to the weather application. The user can manually change the permission from a third manner to a fourth manner by selecting to grant the permission. Paragraph 129 discloses the example is not limited to the weather application, but can apply to other applications. Granting the use of the camera is the second permission/fourth manner), and setting an authorization manner of the first permission of the third application from a fifth manner to a sixth manner (Figure 8, reference number 701 and paragraphs 141 and 145 disclose prompt indicating risk exist for the map application using the camera. Therefore the authorization manner of the third application went from using the camera to disabling the camera/rejected the use of the camera. The rejection of the use of the camera is the first permission/sixth manner), wherein the second manner is a recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the first permission of the second application (paragraph 128 discloses for the weather app, permissions 1 to the permission 3 is set for the weather type, but permission type 4 does not need to be used when the weather App is running. Therefore, the permission service automatically reject to register the permission 4 for the weather app. The rejection of the camera is first permission/ second manner), wherein the fourth manner is a recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the second permission of the second application (paragraph 129 further discloses when the mobile phone identifies that the permission 4 requested by the weather application is an improper application permission, the mobile phone may display the permission 4 in a dialog box. The mobile phone prompts the user that a security risk of granting permission 4 is high and it is recommended for the user to not grant the permission 4 to the weather application. The user can manually change the permission from a third manner to a fourth manner by selecting to grant the permission. Paragraph 129 discloses the example is not limited to the weather application, but can apply to other applications. Granting the use of the camera is the second permission/fourth manner), wherein the sixth manner is a recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the first permission of the third application (Figure 8, reference number 701 and paragraphs 141 and 145 disclose prompt indicating risk exist for the map application using the camera. Therefore the authorization manner of the third application went from using the camera to disabling the camera/rejected the use of the camera. The rejection of the use of the camera is the first permission/sixth manner), and wherein an authorization manner of the first permission of the first application is maintained in the first manner unchanged (Figure 3(b) and paragraph 110, reference number 302 reveals for the WeChat application, the authorization mode of the first permission/rejected the camera can be denied/thus remain unchanged).
Yuan does not teach display…a first user interface wherein the first user interface comprises a simultaneous display of a first access times of a first application to a first permission, a second access times of a second application to the first permission, a third access times of a third application to the first permission,…wherein the first access times is a quantity of times in which the first application has used/attempted to use the first permission, wherein the second access times is a quantity of times in which the second application has used/attempted to use the first permission, wherein the third access times is a quantity of times in which the third application has used/attempted to use the first permission.
Song teaches wherein the first access times is a quantity of times in which the first application has used/attempted to use the first permission, wherein the second access times is a quantity of times in which the second application has used or attempted to use the first permission, wherein the third access times is a quantity of times in which the third application has used or attempted to use the first permission (claims 5-6 discloses for each application, the electronic device determines an evaluation result such as counting the number of times each application utilizes the access right or tracking the total usage time for which the access right is utilized by each application. Therefore, this counting of the number of access times can apply for a first application, second application, and third application).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan’s access occurrences by the first, second and third applications with Song’s teachings of counting/tracking the number of access right usages to provide improved method for controlling and managing application permissions on an electronic device (paragraph 2 of Song).
The combination of Yuan in view of Song does not teach, but Schieman teaches display…a first user interface wherein the first user interface comprises a simultaneous display of a first access times of a first application to a first permission, a second access times of a second application to the first permission, a third access times of a third application to the first permission (Figure 2 and paragraphs 14-15 disclose the simultaneous display of the number of times the microphone has been accessed by three different applications); Schieman further teaches in response to receiving a permission optimization operation performed by a user, performing a plurality of operations comprising setting an authorization manner of the first permission of the second application from a first manner to a second manner, and setting an authorization manner of the second permission of the second application from a third manner to a fourth manner, and setting an authorization manner of the first permission of the third application from a fifth manner to a sixth manner (paragraph 12 and Figure 2 disclose that a user can both view how many times applications has accessed a particular resource and change the access permission of the particular resource by the application in the same screen. Therefore, a user can set the permission in view of the access information and make an informed selection).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan’s access occurrences by the first, second and third applications in view of Song’s teachings of counting/tracking the number of access right usages with Schieman’s teachings of simultaneous display of applications to improve privacy protection and user experience (paragraph 12 of Schieman).
As to claim 2, the combination of Yuan in view of Song and Schieman teaches wherein the first access time is less than the second access times and greater than the third access time (Song: paragraphs 57-60 disclose the concept of a access time being compared to reference number of times for a given application, thus determining when the access times is more than a reference number of times or less than a reference number of times. Navigation application uses the location permission continuously, but the bank A application uses the location 5 times within 5 minutes. Therefore, continuously use is more than 5 times. Song provides the concept of teaching one application access times more or less than another application access times). Motivation is similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
As to claim 3, the combination of Yuan in view of Song teaches wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to:
determine that the first manner is different from the second manner, wherein the second manner is the recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the first permission of the second application based on a preset rule (Yuan: paragraph 128 discloses for the weather app, permissions 1 to the permission 3 is set for the weather type, but permission type 4 does not need to be used when the weather App is running. Therefore, the permission service automatically reject to register the permission 4 for the weather app. The rejection of the camera is first permission/ second manner. The first manner is the mode where the camera is used. Paragraphs 109 and 132 reveal the permission service query the permission access log/preset rule (confirmed by the user) of whether the application has registered the permission(s) and can utilize the location, camera, microphone, address book of the mobile device);
determine that the third manner is different from the fourth manner, wherein the fourth manner is the recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the second permission of the second application based on the preset rule (Yuan: paragraph 129 further discloses when the mobile phone identifies that the permission 4 requested by the weather application is an improper application permission, the mobile phone may display the permission 4 in a dialog box. The mobile phone prompts the user that a security risk of granting permission 4 is high and it is recommended for the user to not grant the permission 4 to the weather application. The user can manually change the permission from a third manner to a fourth manner by selecting to grant the permission. Paragraph 129 discloses the example is not limited to the weather application, but can apply to other applications. Granting the use of the camera is the second permission/fourth manner which is different from the third manner of rejecting the use of the camera. Paragraphs 109 and 132 reveal the permission service query the permission access log/preset rule (confirmed by the user) of whether the application has registered the permission(s) and can utilize the location, camera, microphone, address book of the mobile device);
determine that the fifth manner is different from the sixth manner, wherein the sixth manner is the recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the first permission of the third application based on the preset rule (Yuan: figure 8, reference number 701 and paragraphs 141 and 145 disclose prompt indicating risk exist for the map application using the camera. Therefore the authorization manner of the third application went from using the camera to disabling the camera/rejected the use of the camera. The rejection of the use of the camera is the first permission/sixth manner. The sixth manner differ from the fifth manner of allowing the use of the camera. Paragraphs 109 and 132 reveal the permission service query the permission access log/preset rule (confirmed by the user) of whether the application has registered the permission(s) and can utilize the location, camera, microphone, address book of the mobile device); and
determine that the first manner is an recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the first permission of the first application based on the preset rule (Yuan: Figure 3(b) and paragraph 110, reference number 302 reveals for the WeChat application, the authorization mode of the first permission/rejected the camera can be denied/thus remain unchanged. The first manner is rejecting the user of the camera. Paragraphs 109 and 132 reveal the permission service query the permission access log/preset rule (confirmed by the user) of whether the application has registered the permission(s) and can utilize the location, camera, microphone, address book of the mobile device).
As to claim 4, the combination of Yuan in view of Song and Schieman teaches wherein the sixth manner is different from the second manner (Yuan: figure 8, reference number 701 and paragraphs 141 and 145 disclose prompt indicating risk exist for the map application using the camera. Therefore the authorization manner of the third application went from using the camera to disabling the camera/rejected the use of the camera. The rejection of the use of the camera is the first permission/sixth manner by the map application different from the second manner/rejection of the camera by the weather application as describe in paragraph 128. Paragraph 128 discloses for the weather app, permissions 1 to the permission 3 is set for the weather type, but permission type 4 does not need to be used when the weather App is running. Therefore, the permission service automatically reject to register the permission 4 for the weather app. The rejection of the camera is first permission/ second manner).
As to claim 5, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the first user interface comprises a first option (Yuan: Figure 3(a) shows the display by the electronic device a first user interface of first access occurrence, and the first option of selecting “ok” to grant the WeChat application the list of permissions), and the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
in response to receiving an operation performed by a user on the first option, display a second user interface, wherein the second user interface comprises second prompt information (Yuan: paragraph 14 discloses when the electronic device detects that there is a security risk in allowing the application to use the first application permission in the second interface, the electronic device may prompt the user to manually select to allow or reject the application to use the first application permission), wherein the second prompt information indicates that one or more applications are over-authorized (Song: paragraphs 110 and 147 disclose a display interface prompting the user that the permission is excessive for a certain application).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan’s access occurrences by the first, second and third applications in view of Schieman’s teachings of simultaneous display of applications with Song’s further teachings of displaying interface notification of over-authorized permissions to prevent problems where application requests more permissions than necessary and thus provide better control and limit the access permissions granted unto applications (paragraph 6 of Song).
As to claim 6, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the second user interface further comprises a second option and the permission optimization operation comprises an operation performed by a user on the second option (Yuan: paragraph 14 discloses when the electronic device detects that there is a security risk (permission optimization) in allowing the application to use the first application permission in the second interface, the electronic device may prompt the user to manually select to allow (first option) or reject (second option) the application to use the first application permission. Paragraph 109 reveals that the permission service pre-register one or more application permissions for each application. For each application, the permission service displays to a user, one or more application permissions to be registered. The WeChat application is used as an example in the description, but the example can apply to the different applications of the electronic device).
As to claim 7, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the second user interface further comprises third prompt information, wherein the third prompt information indicates that optimization is recommended (Yuan: paragraph 11 discloses when the electronic device rejects the first application to use the first application permission, the method further includes: The electronic device displays a first notification in the second interface, where the first notification is used to prompt the user that a request for using the first application permission by the first application this time is rejected due to the risk thus performing optimization).
As to claim 8, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the second user interface further comprises fourth prompt information, wherein the fourth prompt information indicates that a third number of permissions are over-authorized, the third number of permissions comprises the second permission of the second application and the first permission of the third application (Song: paragraphs 110, 117-119, 132, 139-140 reveal the concept of showing permissions (first and second permissions) that are excessive/over-authorized on an interface prompt). Motivation is similar to the motivation presented in claim 5.
As to claim 9, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the second user interface further comprises a third option (Yuan: Figure 9(a) discloses the option for the user to select the application permissions), and the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
after receiving an operation performed by a user on the third option, display a third user interface, wherein the third user interface comprises the second permission of the second application, the first permission of the third application and an second permission of the third application (Yuan: paragraph 127, Table 1 reveals for the application type such as social type or weather type application, showing the application permission set. Therefore, for the social type application/third application the permission set include read contacts, read photos, use microphone, use the camera, and location information. The weather type application also include permission set of read contacts, read photos, use microphone, use the camera, and location information. Figure 4( c) shows the third user interface that discloses multiple permission selection for the weather application, permission of location, using the microphone, reading the calendar, and/or using the camera); and
in response to receiving the permission optimization operation, further set an authorization manner of the second permission of the third application from a ninth manner to a tenth manner, wherein the tenth manner is a recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the second permission of the third application (Yuan: Figure 8, and paragraph 141 reveals for the map application, the use of the camera is disabled (tenth manner is the disabling of the camera, ninth manner is the enabling of the camera) by the electronic device according to an permission optimization operation).
As to claim 10, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the third user interface further comprises the first permission of a fourth application wherein the first user interface does not comprise a fourth access times of the fourth application to the first permission (Yuan: Figure 13(b) and paragraph 157 disclose a third user interface that comprises first permission pertaining to the location for the fourth application. This user interface does not comprise access times, but pertains to reporting the real location, fake location, or forbidding to report the location), wherein an authorization manner for the first permission of the fourth application is a seventh manner (Yuan: paragraph 157 reveals the seventh manner of forbidding reporting the location information to the reading application is set in the management/third interface or an option of reporting fake location information to the reading application or an option of reporting real location information to the reading application may be further set in the management interface), and the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
in response to receiving the permission optimization operation, further set an authorization manner of the first permission of the fourth application from the seventh manner to an eighth manner, wherein the eighth manner is a recommended authorization manner configured the electronic device for the first permission of the fourth application, wherein the eighth manner is different from the second manner (Yuan: paragraph 158 and Figure 14 further disclose based on permission optimization operation by the mobile device an alert notify the risk for allowing the reading application to obtain the location. The mobile phone detects that the reading application requests to obtain the location information from the permissions service and provide a prompt box alerting the user risky to allow location. The eighth manner of allowing location differ from the second manner).
As to claim 11, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the third user interface further comprises a fourth option, and the permission optimization operation comprises an operation performed by a user on the fourth option (Yuan: paragraph 129 and Figure 4( c) disclose for the third interface shown in Figure 4(c ) a dialog box that shows permission optimization on the fourth permission option of camera indicating risky should the user select the camera permission).
As to claim 12, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
in response to receiving a second operation performed by a user on the second permission of the second application, display a pop-up interface, wherein the pop-up interface comprises a seventh option (Yuan: paragraph 129 and Figure 4( c) disclose when the mobile phone identifies that the permission 4 (camera) requested by the weather application/second application for registration is an improper application permission as a result from Figure 4(b)/paragraph 128, the mobile phone displays the permission 4(camera) in a dialog box, wherein the dialog box provides the user with a seventh option of selecting the camera permission); and
in response to receiving a third operation performed by a user on the seventh option, set the authorization manner of the second permission of the second application from a third manner to a fourth manner (Yuan: paragraph 129 and Figure 4( c) disclose when the mobile phone identifies that the permission 4 (camera) requested by the weather application/second application for registration is an improper application permission as a result from Figure 4(b)/paragraph 128, the mobile phone displays the permission 4(camera) in a dialog box, wherein the dialog box provides the user with a seventh option of selecting the camera permission. The third operation is the user clicking the ok button. Granting the use of the camera is the second permission/fourth manner ).
As to claim 13, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the third user interface indicates that the second permission of the second application, the first permission of the third application and the second permission of the third application are over-authorized (Song: paragraphs 110 and 147 disclose a display interface prompting the user that the permission is excessive for a certain application. Thus Song teaches the concept of a display interface that can show excessive permission authorization for applications (first, second and third applications)), and the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
in response to receiving a permission optimization operation performed by a user on the second permission of the second application on the third user interface, set the authorization manner of the second permission of the second application from a third manner to a fourth manner (Yuan: Figure 4(c ) and paragraph 129 reveal the interface showing the permission optimization dialog box of alerting the user there is a risk of selecting the camera permission, therefore the user can deselect the camera and select okay or select cancel while the camera permission option remains unselected), and an authorization manner of the first permission of the third application is maintained in the fifth manner unchanged, and an authorization manner of the second permission of the third application is maintained in the ninth manner unchanged ( Yuan: Figure 9(a) reveals regarding the map application, the user selecting the camera permission, but the authorization mode for the first permission/location is not selected and the authorization mode of the second permission/microphone is not selected) for the third application/map application). Motivation is similar to the motivation presented in claim 5.
As to claim 14, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data): after displaying a third user interface, display that recommend to set the authorization manner of the first permission of the third application to a sixth manner (Yuan: Figure 9(a) and paragraph 145 reveal the display of the user selecting the camera permission, location permission, Bluetooth permission, or microphone permission. After the user select the one of these permissions, another display interface prompts appears that allows the user authorizations to enable or disable a corresponding permission for the map application/third application. For example for the camera permission, the mobile phone further set a function of modifying a specific use scenario of the application permission), and display the second permission of the second application (Yuan: Figure 4(b) reveals the display of the second permission in the weather application/second application), the second permission of the third application and fifth prompt information (Yuan: Figure 9(a) and paragraph 145 reveal the display of the user selecting the camera permission, location permission, Bluetooth permission, or microphone permission), wherein the fifth prompt information indicates that that one or more applications are over-authorized (Song: paragraphs 110 and 147 disclose a display interface prompting the user that the permission is excessive for a certain application. Thus Song teaches the concept of a display interface that can show to a user excessive permission authorization for applications (first, second and third applications)). Motivation is similar to the motivation presented in claim 5.
As to claim 15, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the second user interface further comprises ninth prompt information, wherein the ninth prompt information indicates that one or more applications generate behavior of abnormal use of one or more permission (Yuan: paragraph 147 discloses a correspondence between each application permission and a use scenario blacklist may be further set in the mobile phone. In this case, if the mobile phone detects that the map application applies to the permission service for the application permission to use the camera, the mobile phone may determine whether a current use scenario is in a use scenario blacklist corresponding to the application permission to use the camera. If the current use scenario is in the use scenario blacklist corresponding to the application permission to use the camera, it indicates that the operation of using the camera by the map application in the current use scenario is an operation with a relatively high security risk for the user. Therefore, the mobile phone may reject to grant, to the map application, the application permission to use the camera. Song: paragraph 82 reveals the user notification unit displays a user notification based on the evaluation result of the permission determination unit. When the permission of the application is determined as the negative evaluation, the user notification unit displays the user notification on a display).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan’s access occurrences by the first, second and third applications in view of Schieman’s teachings of simultaneous display of applications with Song’s further teachings of prompting the user of abnormal permission behavior such that the electronic device is capable of evaluating access permission for an application using various criteria, and generating notifications that may better inform a user as to whether to grant access permissions (paragraph 7 of Song).
As to claim 16, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein determine, based on a frequency of using a permission by the one or more applications, whether the one or more applications generate behavior of abnormal use of the one or more permission (Song: paragraph 52 discloses a server determines a permission utilized in applications of a reference rate or more (or greater than the reference rate) in the category as a positive evaluation and may determine a permission utilized in applications of less than the reference rate (or the reference rate or less) as a negative/abnormal evaluation).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan’s access occurrences by the first, second and third applications in view of Schieman’s teachings of simultaneous display of applications with Song’s further teachings of prompting the user of abnormal permission behavior such that the electronic device is capable of evaluating access permission for an application using various criteria, and generating notifications that may better inform a user as to whether to grant access permissions (paragraph 7 of Song). Motivation is similar to the motivation presented in claim 15.
As to claim 17, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the second user interface further comprises a sixth option (Yuan: paragraph 14 discloses when the electronic device detects that there is a security risk in allowing the application to use the first application permission in the second interface, the electronic device may prompt the user to manually select to allow or reject the application to use the first application permission, the allowance or rejection is the sixth option), and the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
after receiving an operation performed by a user on the sixth option, display a third user interface, wherein the third user interface comprises the first permission of the second application and a seventh option (Yuan: paragraph 127, Table 1 reveals for the application type such as social type or weather type application, showing the application permission set. Therefore, for the social type application/third application the permission set include read contacts, read photos, use microphone, use the camera, and location information. The weather type application also include permission set of read contacts, read photos, use microphone, use the camera, and location information. Paragraph 129 discloses when the mobile phone identifies that the permission 4 requested by the weather application for registration is an improper application permission, the mobile phone may still display the permission in a dialog box. However, the mobile phone may prompt, in the dialog box, the user that a security risk of granting the permission 4 is relatively high, and recommend the user not to grant the permission 4 to the weather application. In this case, the user may manually select, based on a prompt in the dialog box, whether to grant the permission 4 to the weather application. Figure 9(a) and paragraph 145 further reveal (map application, but embodiment can apply to additional applications) once the user enables the camera permission, another interface dialog as shown in Figure 9(b) appears corresponding to the camera permission of the application (again, embodiment can apply to additional applications and multiple options/seventh options to select or deselect the scenarios of code scanning, streetscape, photographing, and/or positioning), and the third user interface indicates that the second application generates behavior of abnormal use of the first permission (Song: paragraph 82 reveals the user notification unit displays a user notification based on the evaluation result of the permission determination unit. When the permission of the application is determined as the negative evaluation, the user notification unit displays the user notification on a display); and
in response to receiving an operation performed by a user on the seventh option, set the authorization manner of the first permission of the second application from a first manner to a second manner (Yuan: Figure 9(a) and paragraphs 145-146 further reveal (map application, but embodiment can apply to additional applications) once the user enables the camera permission, another interface dialog as shown in Figure 9(b) appears corresponding to the camera permission of the application (again, embodiment can apply to additional applications and multiple options/seventh options to select or deselect the scenarios of code scanning, streetscape, photographing, and/or positioning). The user may manually add a use scenario in which the map application is allowed to use the camera, or may disable a currently granted use scenario in which the map application is allowed to use the camera. This is not limited in this embodiment of this application. If the mobile phone determines that a current positioning scenario is not in the use scenario whitelist corresponding to the application permission to use the camera, as shown in FIG. 10, the mobile phone may display a dialog box, and prompt, in the dialog box, the user that the map application currently expects to use the camera function. In addition, the mobile phone may ask, in the prompt box, the user whether the map application is allowed to use the camera this time. If it is detected that the user taps a “reject” button, the permission service in the mobile phone rejects to grant, to the map application, the application permission to use the camera). Motivation is similar to the motivation presented in claim 15.
As to claim 18, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the third user interface further comprises the first permission of a fifth application (Yuan: paragraph 127, Table 1 reveals for the application type such as social type or weather type application, showing the application permission set. Therefore, for the social type application/third application the permission set include read contacts, read photos, use microphone, use the camera, and location information. The weather type application also include permission set of read contacts, read photos, use microphone, use the camera, and location information. Figure 4( c) shows the third user interface that discloses multiple permission selection for the weather application, permission of location, using the microphone, reading the calendar, and/or using the camera). The embodiment interface is not limited to the weather application, but can apply to map application, the reading application (fifth application), etc.,), and the third user interface indicates that the fifth application generates behavior of abnormal use of the first permission (Song: paragraph 82 reveals the user notification unit displays a user notification based on the evaluation result of the permission determination unit. When the permission of the application is determined as the negative evaluation, the user notification unit displays the user notification on a display) and the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
in response to receiving the permission optimization operation, further set an authorization manner of the first permission of the fifth application from an eleventh manner to a twelfth manner wherein the twelfth manner is a recommended authorization manner configured by the electronic device for the first permission of the fifth application (Yuan: paragraph 156 reveals for the reading application, if it is detected that, in the reading scenario, the reading application requests to obtain the location information from the permission service, the permission service may automatically indicate the positioning service to provide fake location information to the reading application this time. In this case, as shown in FIG. 13(a), the mobile phone may display a notification 1001, and the notification may prompt the user that the location information provided for the reading application this time is not the actual location information of the user. Therefore, providing the fake location is the twelfth manner); and
in response to receiving a permission optimization operation performed by a user on the first permission of the second application on the third user interface, set the authorization manner of the first permission of the second application from a first manner to a second manner, and an authorization manner of the first permission of the fifth application is maintained in the eleventh manner unchanged (Yuan: paragraph 157 discloses the mobile phone may further set a modify button 1002 in the notification 1001. If the mobile phone detects that the user selects the button 1002, as shown in FIG. 13(b), the mobile phone may jump to a management interface 1003, wherein the user can modify from a first manner to a second manner the location settings to include forbidding to report location. Where the eleventh manner is unchanged that pertains to reporting the location). Motivation is similar to the motivation presented in claim 15.
As to claim 19, the combination of Yuan and Song and Schieman teaches wherein the preset rule is formulated based on a national standard or a result of a big data statistical analysis (Song: paragraph 61 discloses the server may update an external category evaluation/rule or external user evaluation/rule, or an external usability evaluation using a statistical method).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan’s access occurrences by the first, second and third applications in view of Schieman’s teachings of simultaneous display of applications with Song’s further teachings of obtaining the evaluations/ preset rules using statistical analysis such that by analyze many apps and collect and reflect evaluation results of several users, the system, can accurately receive and reflect the result of a permission granted or denied in a terminal of each user (paragraph 61 of Song).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al US 20210390171 (hereinafter Yuan), in view of Song et al US 20220309187 (hereinafter Song), in further view of Schieman et al US 20170235469 (hereinafter Scheiman), and in further view of Haga et al US 20120291138(hereinafter Haga).
As to claim 20, the combination of Yuan in view of Song and Schieman teaches all the limitations presented in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the first prompt information indicates a privacy risk exists (Yuan: Figure 8, reference number 701 and paragraphs 141 and 145 disclose prompt indicating risk exist for the map application using the camera), wherein the first user interface further comprises a fifth option (Yuan: paragraph 145 further discloses a fifth option of the user tapping the display notification 701 that displayed the risk notification), and the instructions further cause the electronic device to be configured to (Yuan: paragraph 52 reveals the memory is disposed in the processor and is configured to store an instruction and data):
in response to receiving an operation performed by a user on the second application on the first user interface, display a fifth user interface, wherein the fifth user interface comprises a first permission access list (Yuan: Figures 4(b) and paragraphs 128-129 disclose the first user interface for the second application/weather application. The interface receives a selection of either “ok” or “cancel” by the user for the weather dialog permission box. When the mobile phone identifies that the permission requested by the weather application for registration is improper application permission, the mobile phone displays the permission 4 for the camera in a fifth interface/dialog box shown in Figure 4(c). The dialog box shown in Figure 4(c) shows a permission access list for location, microphone, calendar, and camera), wherein the first permission access list comprises a first permission access record and a second permission access record (Yuan: the dialog box shown in Figure 4(c) shows a permission access list for location, microphone, calendar, and camera), wherein the first permission access record is an access record of the second application allowed to use the first permission at a first time point (Yuan: the dialog box shown in Figure 4(c) shows a permission access list for location, microphone, calendar, and camera. The user can select at a first time point which permission to grant for the weather application), wherein the second permission access record is an access record of the second application allowed to use the first permission at a second time point, and the first permission access list does not comprises an permission access record of the second application allowed to use the second permission (Yuan: paragraph 139 shows second permission access record of whitelist scenarios for the application permission. The first permission access list of the weather application shown in Figure 4(c ) does not display second scenarios based permissions);
in response to receiving a fifth operation performed by a user on the fifth user interface, display a sixth user interface, wherein the sixth user interface comprises seventh prompt information, wherein the seventh prompt information indicates the second application has a privacy risk (Yuan: paragraphs 128-129 disclose when the mobile phone identifies that the permission requested by the weather application for registration is improper application permission, the mobile phone displays the permission 4 for the camera in a fifth interface/dialog box shown in Figure 4(c). The dialog box shown in Figure 4(c) shows a permission access list for location, microphone, calendar, and camera. The user can select in the fifth interface the camera. Paragraph 129 disclose the mobile phone may prompt in the dialog box/sixth interface that a security risk of granting permission 4 (camera) is relatively high);
in response to receiving a sixth operation performed by a user on the fifth option, display a seventh user interface, wherein the seventh user interface comprises a second permission access list, wherein the second permission access list comprises a third permission access record, a fourth permission access record, and a fifth permission access record (Yuan: Figure 9(a) and paragraph 145 reveal the user can select (sixth operation) the display notification of the risk (fifth option), and is bought to a seventh user interface shown in Figure 9(b). Figure 9b shows second permission access list, wherein third permission access record is of the code scanning scenario, the fourth permission access record is of the streetscape scenario, and the fifth permission access record is of photographing scenario), wherein the third permission access record is an access record of the first application allowed to use the first permission at a third time point (Yuan: Figure 9(b) and paragraphs 139 and 145 reveal the concept the scenario record for application (which can be any application, first, second, third) for a time period), wherein the fourth permission access record is an access record of the second application allowed to use the first permission at a fourth time point (Yuan: Figure 9(b) and paragraphs 139 and 145 reveal the concept the scenario record for application (which can be any application, first, second, third) for different points of time/period), wherein the fifth permission access record is an access record of the second application allowed to use the second permission at a fifth time point (Yuan: Figure 9(b) and paragraphs 139 and 145 reveal the concept the scenario record for application (which can be any application, first, second, third) for different points of time/period); and
in response to receiving the permission optimization operation, display a fourth user interface, wherein the fourth user interface comprises a sixth prompt information, wherein the sixth prompt information indicates please feel free to use (Yuan: paragraph 109 reveals that the permission service pre-register one or more application permissions for each application. For each application, the permission service displays to a user, one or more application permissions to be registered. The WeChat application is used as an example in the description, but the example can apply to the different applications of the electronic device. Figure 3(b) shows an interface where the user can indicate “ok” to use the camera for the WeChat application).
The combination of Yuan in view of Song and Schieman does not teach, but Haga teaches a privacy risk exists comprises indicates a first number of applications have privacy risks, wherein the first number of applications comprises the second application and the third application (paragraphs 187-188 and Figure 16 disclose application unauthorized cooperation pattern/privacy risk list that comprises a number of applications such as applications A, B, and C).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan’s access occurrences by the first, second and third applications in view of Schieman’s teachings of simultaneous display of applications and Song’s teachings of counting/tracking the number of access right usages with Haga’s teachings of generating a list of applications that have privacy risks to take preventive actions that reduce the cooperation of malware developing and leading to potential risk of the leakage of user’s information (paragraph 5 of Haga).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mallozzi US 20160191534 (hereinafter Mallozzi).
Mallozzi teaches display…a first user interface wherein the first user interface comprises a simultaneous display of a first access times of a first application to a first permission, a second access times of a second application to the first permission, a third access times of a third application to the first permission (Figure 4B and paragraphs 105-109 disclose GUI of the application for managing permissions. The GUI displays statistics for access requests received from applications. For Application 1, the GUI displays the number of access requests for the GPS resource) as disclosed in claim 1.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA FARROW whose telephone number is (571)272-1856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30am-4:00pm (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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/F.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
