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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed September 26, 2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims in the filed amendment. Claims 31-44 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/26/25, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
On page 7 of remarks, Applicant argues that the rejection, and specifically the Alen reference, does not teach a proxy server.
In reply, Applicants argument is not persuasive. The claimed proxy server is broad and is still seen to function as an intermediary server. Applicants allegation of the “specific technical meaning in computer networking…” is not mentioned in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claimed remote proxy server as recited in the claims is only functionally required (and claimed) to send a message requesting an application to activate. The ratings server of Alen, which is remote to the client, satisfies the claimed functionality since the ratings server is intermediary between the mobile device (130) and the client servers (101-103).
On pages 7-8 of remarks, Applicant argues that Forestall does not teach batching data but rather teaches fetching data.
In reply, Applicant argument is persuasive, and a new grounds of rejection is presented below based on Klessen.
On pages 8-9 of remarks, Applicant argues regarding “waking up a background application”.
In reply, Applicants arguments are acknowledged but not persuasive. There may be some scope overlap, but “waking up” is not recited in the claims. If it was recited in the claims, then it would require a different claim analysis. Rather, the rejection focuses on the actual recited limitations and has rejected those limitations based on the below 103 rejection. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 10 of remarks Applicant argues the Double Patenting rejection.
In reply, Applicants argument is not persuasive as it was addressed above. Therefore the Double Patenting rejection remains and is incorporated herein by reference.
On page 11 of remarks Applicant argues that the amended limitations are not taught by the references.
In reply, Applicants argument is not persuasive. Applicants argument is more narrow than what the claims actually recite. Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case, the claimed “in response to” is recited at the end of the limitation, not at the beginning, and not in the middle. It gives the impression that the “in response to” only applies to the transmitting the data since the claim states “transmit the batched data in response to…”. Furtermore, the argued “waking up the mobile device in response to receiving… where the waking up requires…” is not recited in the claims, and is not read into the claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the Office Action dated 3/26/25 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 31-35,37-42,44 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forstall et al (US Publication 20090006570) in view of Lando et al (US Publication 20080242370) in further view of Klassen (US Publication 20070124386) in further view of Alen (US Publication 20100016011).
In reference to claim 31, Forstall teaches a mobile device configured for aligning data transfer from the mobile device to optimize connections made by the mobile device in a wireless network, the mobile device comprising:
a memory (¶ 32); a backlight (¶ 42); a radio (¶ 37); and a processor (¶ 35), the mobile device configured to:
detect that an application is executing in a background of the mobile device; (see at least ¶ 173 lines 12-13, which teaches the application running in the background)
detect that an application is executing in a foreground of the mobile device (see at least ¶ 173 line 16, which teaches the application running in the foreground);
batch a first set of data for the first application; transmit the first set of batched data for the application (see at least ¶ 173 lines 5-13, which teaches batching mail according to an autofetch functionality, and receiving the batched mail less frequently when a first application is in the background); and
transmit data for the second application at a time when the second application requests transmission (see at least ¶ 173 lines 1-5,14-16, which teaches receiving mail for a second/foreground application upon request, such as launch or unlock).
wherein the mobile device is further configured to power the radio (see at least ¶s 82-85,90-93, which teaches powering an RF circuit for transmitting/receiving data/messages), activate the at least one of the first and second applications (see at least ¶s 59-79,165, which teaches activating and utilizing any of the set of applications), and transmit the batched data in response to the message (see at least ¶s 172,176, which teaches receiving the batched data in response to events/messages).
Regarding the first and second applications, Forstall teaches multiple email user accounts on the same device, where each account can be independently configured with its own data batching and fetching criteria (see Forstall, at least ¶ 101 lines 20-30). ¶ 101 of Forstall further explains that each of the user accounts (i.e. application) has its own code and settings which tailor the autofetch functionality for that account. Accordingly, each account is configured differently and each account can either be in the foreground or the background. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Forstall so that a first user account is configured for data transmission in the background and the second user account is configured for data transmission in the foreground. This would be for the purpose of customizing and improving a users interactive experience with the applications no matter their operating status.
Forstall fails to explicitly teach batching a first set of data for the first application (executing in the background); and transmit the first set of batched data for the first application; and transmit data for the second application at a time when the second application requests transmission. However, Klassen teaches regulating message transmission based on application status (see Klassen, see at least Abstract). Specifically, Klassen discloses accumulating and batching a first set of message data based on a first application idle/background status, and later transmitting the batched data. Klassen further discloses transmitting data for a non-idle/foreground second application at a time when the data is transmitted (see Klassen, see at least ¶s 21,22). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Forstall based on the teachings of Klassen for the purpose of efficiently regulating message transmission and reducing unnecessary message traffic.
Forstall fails to explicitly teach while the backlight of the mobile device is on, and while the backlight is off in response to inactivity of the device. However, Lando teaches efficient server polling by detecting device active status when a backlight is on and submitting application requests (see Lando, at least ¶ 40) and further teaches detecting inactive device when the backlight is off and thus changing the delivery of application requests (see Lando, at least ¶ 41). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Forstall based on the teachings of Lando for the purpose of efficiently scheduling server polling according to the device status.
when the backlight of the device is off (as taught by Lando above):
detect that the second application is executing in the background of the
mobile device (see Forstall, at least ¶ 177 lines 3-17, where Forstall teaches first and second email user accounts, and both accounts can be configured to operate in the background, as mentioned above).
Forstall fails to explicitly teach wherein the mobile device is further configured to receive a message requesting at least one of the first and second applications to activate when at least one of the first and second applications are executing in the background of the mobile device, and wherein the mobile device is further configured to transmit the batched data in response to the message. However, Lando teaches the mobile device receiving a command from a user which activates the IM application and switches the device to an active state, and as a result of the device entering an active state, the device transmits application data (see Lando, at least ¶ 37 lines 1-13 and ¶s 38 & 40). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Forstall based on the teachings of Lando for the purpose of efficiently scheduling server polling according to the activity state of the application and device.
Forstall fails to explicitly teach receive an out of band message from a remote proxy server requesting at least one of the applications to activate. However, Alen teaches a mobile device receiving an external message from a remote server requesting an application on the mobile device to activate (see Alen, at least Fig 3 & ¶s 68-69). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Forstall based on the teachings of Alen for the purpose of ensuring that important information from the device is collected for processing an analysis.
In reference to claim 32, this is taught by Forstall, see at least ¶ 173 lines 5-13, where Forstall teaches transmitting batched data in individual interval transmissions, and ¶ which teaches wireless communications.
In reference to claim 33, this is taught by Forstall, see at least ¶ 172 lines 8-12 & ¶ 173 lines 5-7, where Forstall teaches batching data in adjustable time periods based on user interactions.
In reference to claim 34, this is taught by Forstall, see at least ¶ 177, where Forstall teaches profiles as autofetch settings which include predefined values for users.
In reference to claim 35, this is taught by Forstall, see at least ¶s 103,104, where Forstall teaches details of the autofetch settings based on user interactions.
In reference to claim 37, this is taught by Forstall, see at least ¶ 177, where Forstall teaches adjusting the time periods in the autofetch settings.
Claims 38-42,44 are slight variations of claims 31-35,37 and are thus rejected based upon the same rationale given above.
Claim 36,43 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forstall et al (US Publication 20090006570) in view of Lando et al (US Publication 20080242370) in further view of Klassen (US Publication 20070124386) in further view of Alen (US Publication 20100016011) in further view of Beninghaus et al (US Publication 20100304794).
In reference to claims 36,43, Forestall teaches batching data in a power saving mode (see Forestall, at least ¶s 172-173). Forstall fails to explicitly teach the data is not batched when the mobile device is plugged in to a power source. However, Beninghaus teaches power and application management in a mobile device, and discloses disabling a power save mode when the device is plugged into a power source (see Beninghaus, at least ¶ 24 lines 1-6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Forstall based on the teachings of Beninghaus for the purpose of resuming normal operations of the device when not relying upon a limited battery supply.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
December 10, 2025