DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/13/26.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2, 12 and 13 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 14-17 are pending.
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 Arguments
Argument – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claim 1, that Rogel does not disclose the limitation “a fourth physical device, separate from the first physical device and the second physical device, wherein the plurality of communication links is configured such that the first physical device, the second physical device, and the fourth physical device, in combination, concurrently coordinate operation to function as the third device”. In particular, the applicant states that migrating a telephone functionality from one mobile device to another or from one mobile device to any other computerized device as disclosed in Rogel does not teach or suggest a fourth physical device, separate from the first physical device and the second physical device…and the fourth physical device, in combination, concurrently coordinate operation to function as the third device (see applicant’s remarks; pages 5-7).
Response to argument – The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claim is merely directed toward a separate fourth device concurrently coordinates operation with a first and second device to function as a third device. Rogel discloses live migration of a telephone functionality between devices.
In particular, as noted by the applicant (see applicant’s remarks; pages 6 and 7), Rogel discloses continuing execution of a VM on a different computer or handset. For example, a telephone functionality is migrated from one mobile device to another or from one mobile device to a laptop computer (see Rogel; paragraph 0051). Also, the examiner notes, Rogel discloses the method of migration includes serializing the VM embodying the virtual telephone and transferring the serialized VM from the source mobile device to a target device, for example, by streaming (emphasis added) to implement an appropriate telephone. The migration includes transferring the serialized VM embodying the virtual telephone to an intermediary and then transferring the serialized VM to the target device (emphasis added) (see Rogel; paragraph 0051). Even further, Rogel discloses a hot motion or live migration wherein, while the VM is running on one handset, and moving it to another handset as if it never stopped running (emphasis added) (see Rogel; paragraph 0052). In other words, the mobile phone, intermediary device and laptop computer work together to share data, via the migration of the telephone functionality, for example streaming between devices, in order for the appropriate telephone to operate for the user. The telephone functionality never stops running on the devices.
Therefore, in regards to the limitation, Rogel does in fact disclose “a fourth physical device, separate from the first physical device and the second physical device, wherein the plurality of communication links is configured such that the first physical device, the second physical device, and the fourth physical device, in combination, concurrently coordinate operation to function as the third device” by disclosing a mobile phone, intermediary device and laptop computer working together to share data, via migration of the telephone functionality, for example by streaming between the devices, i.e. “in combination…”, in order for the appropriate telephone to operate for the user, in which the telephone functionality never stops running, i.e. “…concurrently coordinate operation”. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the terms “at least one of” and “or”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogel et al. (U.S. 2013/0254369 A1) in view of Greenfield et al. (U.S. 2013/0275973 A1), and further in view of Cook et al. (U.S. 6,754,759 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Rogel discloses a system, comprising:
a first physical device (mobile phone) (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses a physical mobile device, e.g. mobile phone);
a second physical device (laptop computer) (Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses a second physical mobile device, e.g. a laptop computer); and
a plurality of communication links between the first physical device (mobile phone) and the second physical device (laptop computer) (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses using a wireless carrier, WiFi or physical wired connection to communicate between mobile devices. Further, a method of migration includes transferring, i.e. from the mobile phone, the serialized VM embodying a virtual telephone to a computer/another mobile device or other intermediary and then transferring the serialized VM to the target device, e.g. laptop computer. In other words, there is a first communication link from the mobile phone to the intermediary device and a second communication link from the intermediary device to the laptop computer, and as such, a “plurality of communication links between the first physical device and the second physical device”. The examiner notes that the applicant’s specification states the “communication link” may include any type of link capable of allowing data transfer, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0057), wherein the first physical device (mobile phone) includes hardware of a first type and the second physical device (laptop computer) includes hardware of a second type (see Rogel; paragraphs 0052 and 0057; Rogel discloses a mobile phone and laptop computer, and that the source and destination devices have different architecture. Further, the examiner notes that a mobile phone includes different hardware than a laptop computer. In other words, a mobile phone and a laptop computer require different types of hardware because they are different types of devices), and
a fourth physical device (computer or intermediary device), separate from the first physical device (mobile phone) and the second physical device (laptop computer), wherein the plurality of communication links is configured such that the first physical device (mobile phone), the second physical device (laptop computer), and the fourth physical device (computer or other intermediary device), in combination (working together to), concurrently coordinate operation to function as the third device (appropriate telephone) (see Rogel; paragraphs 0051 and 0052; Rogel discloses a user is able to move his/her telephone functionality from one physical device, e.g. mobile phone, i.e. “first physical device”, to another physical device, e.g. laptop computer, i.e. “second physical device”, to enable the user to use an appropriate telephone, i.e. “third device”, based on the user's location. The method of migration includes transferring the serialized VM embodying the virtual telephone to a computer or other intermediary device, i.e. “fourth physical device”, and then transferring to the target device, for example by streaming between devices. Therefore, the computer or other intermediary device is used with coordinating the telephone functionality. Further, a hot motion or live migration is used wherein, while the VM is running on one handset/device, moving it to another handset/device as if it never stopped running, i.e. “…concurrently coordinate operation”. In other words, the mobile phone, intermediary device and laptop computer work together to, i.e. “in combination”, share data, via the migration of functionality, for example by streaming between the devices, in order for the appropriate telephone, i.e. “third device”, to operate for the user, in which the telephone functionality never stops running, i.e. “…concurrently coordinate operation”. Further, the mobile phone, intermediary device, and laptop computer are separate devices since they are individual devices).
While Rogel discloses “a plurality of communication links between the first physical device and the second physical device”, as discussed above, Rogel does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of communication links is configured such that the first physical device and the second physical device coordinate operation by configuring and sharing software resources and communicating utilizing a compression technique at least one hypervisor that moves from one physical device to the other and implements translation via a translator operating above a hardware layer between the first physical device and the second physical device in order to function as a third device.
In analogous art, Greenfield discloses wherein the plurality of communication links is configured such that the first physical device and the second physical device coordinate operation by configuring and sharing software resources and communicating utilizing a compression technique at least one hypervisor that moves from one physical device to the other and implements translation via a translator operating above a hardware layer between the first physical device and the second physical device in order to function as a third device (see Greenfield; paragraphs 0040, 0044, 0086, 0088, 0095, 0122, 0124 and 0142; Greenfield discloses sharing resources, i.e. “sharing software resources”, between a first computing machine, i.e. “first physical device”, and a portable device, i.e. “second physical device”, using a VMM, i.e. “hypervisor”, on top of bare metal, i.e. “above a hardware layer”, in order for a user to run a portable computing environment as a regular PC desktop, i.e. “…function as a third device”. In particular, the VMM is transferred, i.e. “at least one hypervisor that moves from one physical device to the other”, in order for the computing environment, such as a desktop applications, to be ran on a device as a regular PC desktop. The transfer can occur in a compressed manner, i.e. “communicating utilizing a compression technique”. The connection between the host, e.g. first computing machine, and the portable device in order to share the resources uses translation, i.e. “implements translation via a translator”, between calls).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rogel and Greenfield because they both disclose features of communicating data between multiple devices, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the feature of a continuous portable experience as taught by Greenfield into the system of Rogel in order to provide scalability by allowing the migration of telephone functionality from one mobile device to another device (see Rogel; paragraph 0051) to provide a full-speed continuous portable experience for when a user is on the go (see Greenfield; paragraph 0086).
While Rogel discloses a shared memory that stores control streams and data packets (see Rogel; paragraph 0014), as well as, an intermediary device, as discussed above, the combination of Rogel and Greenfield does not explicitly disclose the plurality of communication links includes a common memory region shared by the hardware of a first type of the first physical device and the hardware of the second type of the second physical device.
In analogous art, Cook discloses the plurality of communication links includes a common memory region shared by the hardware of a first type of the first physical device and the hardware of the second type of the second physical device (see Cook; Abstract and column 6 line 53 – column 7 line 15; Cook discloses information being transferred from LBVC 400 or “first physical device” to a common area and then from the common area to RMD 700 or “second physical device”. In particular, information is transferred from one device on a local bus, i.e. a first communication link, to a shared memory area and then from the shared memory area to another device on a system bus, i.e. a second communication link. Further, the examiner notes that the LBVC 400 and RMD 700 are different devices, and as such, would require different types of hardware. And as such, the hardware of the LBVC 400 and the hardware of the RMD 700 communicate with and use the shared memory area).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rogel, Greenfield and Cook because they all disclose features of communicating data between multiple devices, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the feature of a shared memory as taught by Cook into the combined system of Rogel of Greenfield in order to provide scalability by allowing one way to implement the shared memory (see Rogel; paragraph 0014), as well as, provide a way to transfer information between a first device and second device when access may be restricted (see Cook; column 1 lines 8-12 and column 5 lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 3, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein coordinating operation to function as the third device (appropriate telephone) includes communicating at least one virtual machine between the first physical device (mobile phone) and the second physical device (laptop computer) (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses migrating a virtual machine from one mobile device, i.e. mobile phone, to another mobile device, i.e. laptop computer).
Regarding claim 4, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein coordinating operation to function as the third device (appropriate telephone) includes communicating at least one operating system between the first physical device and the second physical device (see Rogel; paragraphs 0028, 0048 and 0051; Rogel discloses the use of guest operating systems between the mobile devices).
Regarding claim 5, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein coordinating operation to function as the third device (appropriate telephone) includes communicating data (SIM data) between the first physical device (mobile phone) and the second physical device (laptop computer) (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses virtualizing the SIM chip of the mobile phone and transferring it to the other mobile device, i.e. laptop computer).
Regarding claim 6, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein coordinating operation to function as the third device (appropriate telephone) includes communicating at least one device function (telephone functionality) between the first physical device (mobile phone) and the second physical device (laptop computer) (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses migrating telephone functionality from the mobile phone to a laptop computer).
Regarding claim 7, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein the at least one device function includes at least one of a phone call (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses migrating telephone functionality from the mobile phone to a laptop computer), a game, a word processing function. (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “phone call” alternative).
Regarding claim 8, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein at least one of the first physical device or the second physical device include at least one of a mobile phone (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses a mobile phone), a tablet computer, a laptop computer (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses a laptop computer or any other computerized device), a television, a watch, a set-top box, a desktop computer (see Rogel; paragraphs 0051; Rogel discloses a desktop computer), or a GPS unit. (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “mobile phone”, “tablet computer”, “laptop computer", and “desktop computer” alternatives).
Regarding claim 9, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein the plurality of communication links between the first physical device (mobile phone) and the second physical device (laptop computer) includes a wireless link (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses the use of a wireless provider and WiFi for communication between the mobile devices).
Regarding claim 10, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein the plurality of communication links between the first physical device (mobile phone) and the second physical device (laptop computer) includes a wired link (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses the use of a physical wire connection for communication between the devices).
Regarding claim 14, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein coordinating operation to function as the third device (appropriate telephone) includes sharing hardware (SIM chip) between the first physical device (mobile phone) and the second physical device (laptop computer) (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses virtualizing and transferring the SIM chip along with the VM from the mobile phone to the laptop computer. The SIM, its reader and control circuitry are hardware devices where their function is emulated through virtualization).
Regarding claim 15, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly discloses wherein the hardware includes at least one processor (control circuitry) (see Rogel; paragraph 0051; Rogel discloses virtualizing and transferring the SIM chip along with the VM from the mobile phone to the laptop computer. The SIM, its reader and control circuitry are hardware devices where their function is emulated through virtualization).
Regarding claim 16, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly disclose wherein the hardware includes at least one display (see Rogel; paragraph 0006; Rogel discloses that hardware that is being virtualized and shared includes various mobile device display hardware).
Regarding claim 17, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook clearly disclose wherein the at least one hypervisor between the first physical device and the second physical device includes a virtual machine manager (virtual machine monitor) (see Rogel; paragraph 0008; Rogel discloses the hypervisor referred to as a virtual machine monitor).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogel et al. (U.S. 2013/0254369 A1) in view of Greenfield et al. (U.S. 2013/0275973 A1) and Cook et al. (U.S. 6,754,759 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sanghvi et al. (U.S. 2012/0210318 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Rogel, Greenfield and Cook disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further while Rogel discloses the use of WiFi in migrating a virtual machine (see Rogel; paragraph 0051), the combination of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of communication links between the first physical device and the second physical device includes a link via cloud.
In analogous art, Sanghvi discloses wherein the plurality of communication link between the first physical device (host server) and the second physical device (host server) includes a link via cloud (i.e. network cloud) (see Sanghvi; paragraphs 0021, 0035, 0036 and 0041; Sanghvi discloses a migration of a VM between physical host servers and the use of a network cloud. Also, the virtual switch can be external to the virtual machines).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rogel, Greenfield Cook and Sanghvi because they all disclose features of communicating data between devices/machines, as well as, Rogel, Greenfield and Sanghvi disclosing managing virtual machines on multiple devices, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the feature of a network cloud as taught by Sanghvi into the combined system of Rogel, Greenfield and Cook in order to provide the benefit of scalability by including a network cloud as one way to communicate resources, and thereby improving accessibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bhatt (U.S. 2014/0129685 A1) discloses a single host computer to perform the functions of multiple computers through the sharing of by sharing of the host computer's resources.
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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 09/15/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights