Patent Application 18763358 - Systems and Methods for Providing Information - Rejection

Patent Application 18763358 - Systems and Methods for Providing Information

Title: Systems and Methods for Providing Information And Performing Task

Application Information

• Invention Title: Systems and Methods for Providing Information And Performing Task
• Application Number: 18763358
• Submission Date: 2025-04-08T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2024-07-03T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2024-07-03T00:00:00.000Z
• Examiner Employee Number: 83728
• Art Unit: 2625
• Tech Center: 2600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0079508🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.

Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (hereinafter “Ryu”), US Patent No. 10,540,013, in view of Hodge et al. (hereinafter “Hodge”), US Pub. No. 2010/0079508.
Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches a method for presenting information at an electronic device (fig. 1), comprising: detecting an act made by a user involving physical contact with the electronic device or physical movement of the electronic device when a display of the electronic device when a display of the electronic has an idle screen or a screen in standby mode, inactive mode, or screen-saver mode (figs. 2, 4A-4J), the electronic device including a first sensor that detects the act and a second sensor that is different from the first sensor and senses the user or detects an object approaching the device (figs. 5, 6A, 6B); performing gaze detection only after detecting the act (figs. 7, 8); ascertaining whether the user looks at a direction toward the electronic device (fig. 7, S701); and presenting a plurality of content items after it is ascertained that the user looks at a direction toward the electronic device (fig. 8, step 830).
Ryu fails to explicitly teach determining whether the user is recognized via a recognition mechanism and presenting a plurality of content items after the user is recognized via the recognition mechanism.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hodge teaches an electronic device with gaze detection capabilities that allow the device to detect when a user is looking at the device ([0116]). Hodge teaches that its device may include user-identification capabilities to distinguish between authorized and unauthorized users ([0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the gaze detection after detecting a device’s physical movement of Ryu to include Hodge’s capability of distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized users. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the motivation for doing so would have been to allow the device to recognize only an authorized user and therefore improve the security and privacy of Ryu’s device.
Regarding claim 2, Ryu teaches wherein the plurality of content items is unrelated to content presented before a state of the idle-screen, the standby mode, the inactive mode, or the screen-saver mode (figs. 4A-4J).
Regarding claim 3, Hodge teaches wherein the recognition mechanism includes a facial recognition method ([0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu teaches wherein the plurality of content items includes at least of [the] following items: news, alert, update, email, text message, sponsored content, and other information (figs. 4A-4J).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu teaches wherein detecting the act includes detecting the physical movement of the electronic device (figs. 4A-4J and accompanying text).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu teaches wherein sensing the user includes detecting a movement of the user or the user approaching the device (col. 4, lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu teaches wherein the electronic device further includes a third sensor that senses the eye of the user (col. 4, lines 49-57).
Regarding claim 8, it has similar limitations to those of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above (Ryu teaches ascertaining whether the user looks at a direction towards the electronic device using gaze detection and determining task performance based off of gaze, see fig. 7, S701).
Regarding claims 9-14, they have similar limitations to those of claims 1-3 and 5-7, and are rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 15, it has similar limitations to those of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.

Regarding claims 16-20, they have similar limitations to those of claims 3-7 and are rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stallings et al. (US Patent No. 8,331,992) teaches a mobile communication device that receives information while in a sleep or locked state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3147. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.


/KENNETH B LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625