DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29 are presented for consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,411,962, claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,614,685, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,935,835, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No 11,218,372. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of patents anticipate claims of current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "a user" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
6. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rakowski et al. [ US Patent Application No 2007/0283011 ], in view of Welingkar et al. [ US Patent Application No 2008/0114830 ].
7. As per claim 1, Rakowski discloses the invention as claimed including a method, comprising:
creating new settings information at a first device of a user [ i.e. the configuration changes are stored in a local event log on each client ] [ Abstract; and paragraph 0028 ], wherein the new settings information comprises a setting configuration of a service configured by the user [ i.e. configuration information ] [ paragraphs 0027, 0028, and 0032 ];
transmitting the new settings information from the first device to a server [ i.e. the identified local updates are sent by the client device to the server ] [ 126, Figure 1; and paragraphs 0044, and 0071 ];
receiving a setting data package at a second device of the user [ i.e. request and receive new configuration information ] [ 118, Figure 1; and paragraph 0038 ], wherein the setting data package is created based on the transmitted new settings information [ i.e. provide configuration information to a second client device, the configuration information provided to the second client device including the update received from the first client ] [ paragraphs 0011, and 0093 ].
Rakowski does not specifically disclose
wherein the setting configuration is common between the service and another service, wherein the server is configured to handle an error, a validation check, or a combination thereof of the new settings information;
implementing the setting data package, by the second device, to configured the another service.
Welingkar discloses
wherein the setting configuration is common between the service and another service [ i.e. initate data backup or migration from previous client device to new client device ] [ paragraphs 0156, 0157, and 0160 ], wherein the server is configured to handle an error, a validation check, or a combination thereof of the new settings information [ i.e. convert files in formats that are compatible with the new client device ] [ paragraphs 0159-0165 ];
implementing the setting data package, by the second device, to configured the another service [ i.e. initiate the data restore on new device ] [ paragraphs 0156, and 0186-0192 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rakowski and Welingkar because the teaching of Welingkar would enable to provide plurality of services to a client side computing device including supporting a software download service, centralized account maintenance service, and data management service [ Welingkar, paragraph 0007 ].
8. As per claim 2, Welingkar discloses wherein the setting data package is received via a short-range wireless communication [ i.e. Bluetooth ] [ paragraph 0030 ].
9. As per claim 3, Rakowski discloses receiving the new settings information is input to the server, the service, or a combination thereof via s service-specific user interface [ paragraph 0098 ].
10. As per claim 4, Rakowski discloses receiving the settings data package via a web browser [ i.e. browser ] [ paragraphs 0027, and 0029 ].
11. As per claim 5, Rakowski discloses wherein the setting configuration is designated to the first device, the second device, or a combination thereof [ Abstract; and paragraph 0011 ], and wherein the designation is based on an existing account [ i.e. user account ] [ paragraphs 0028, and 0074 ].
12. As per claim 6, Rakowski discloses wherein the setting data package comprises an indication of the first device, the second device or a combination thereof to synchronize the setting configuration contained in the settings data package [ i.e. synchronize configuration information across multiple computers ] [ paragraphs 0004, and 0093 ].
13. As per claim 8, Rakowski discloses wherein the setting configuration comprises a device setting or a synchronization setting [ paragraph 0027 ].
14. As per claim 9, Welingkar discloses wherein the service comprises provision of other data content or multimedia streaming [ i.e. prepare data that is in format that is compatible with hardware or software configuration of the second client device ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0159, and 0160 ].
15. As per claim 10, Welingkar discloses wherein the user device is a gaming device, television, or mobile telephone [ Figure 1; and paragraphs 0027, and 0028 ].
16. As per claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1.
17. As per claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 2.
18. As per claim 13, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 3.
19. As per claim 21, Rakowski discloses wherein the new setting information is input to an application on the first device before transmitting the new settings information from the first device to the server [ i.e. configuration changes are stored in a local event log on each client ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0006, and 0011 ].
20. As per claim 22, Rakowski discloses wherein the setting data is received at the second device from a setting configuration service [ i.e. synchronization services of the server computer ] [ paragraph 0028, and 0031 ]
21. As per claim 24, Rakowski discloses wherein the setting configuration comprises one or more service usage setting, one or more service usage preferences, or a combination thereof [ i.e. synchronization preferences ] [ Figure 8; and paragraphs 0050, and 0074 ].
22. As per claims 25 and 26, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 21, and 22.
23. As per claim 28, Welingkar discloses wherein the second device is selected by a user from a plurality of user devices [ i.e. new user device ] [ paragraphs 0156-0159 ].
24. As per claim 29, Rakowski discloses the invention as claimed including a method comprising:
creating at a first device a new settings configuration of a service [ i.e. configuration information ] [ paragraphs 0027, 0028, and 0032 ], wherein the new settings configuration of the service is created by a user of the first device [ i.e. the configuration changes are stored in a local event log on each client ] [ Abstract; and paragraph 0028 ];
transmitting the new settings configuration of the service from the first device to a server [ i.e. the identified local updates are sent by the client device to the server ] [ 126, Figure 1; and paragraphs 0044, and 0071 ], to create a settings data package based on the new settings configuration of the service [ i.e. provide configuration information to a second client device, the configuration information provided to the second client device including the update received from the first client ] [ paragraphs 0011, and 0093 ];
receiving, at a second user device of the user, the settings data package from the server [ i.e. request and receive new configuration information ] [ 118, Figure 1; and paragraph 0038 ].
Rakowski does not specifically disclose
wherein the service is configured to handle a validation check of the new settings configuration; and
implementing, at the second user device, the settings data package to configure the second user device, the service, or a combination thereof.
Welingkar discloses
wherein the service is configured to handle a validation check of the new settings configuration [ i.e. convert files in formats that are compatible with the new client device ] [ paragraphs 0159-0165 ]; and
implementing, at the second user device, the settings data package to configure the second user device, the service, or a combination thereof [ i.e. initiate the data restore on new device ] [ paragraphs 0156, and 0186-0192 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rakowski and Welingkar because the teaching of Welingkar would enable to provide plurality of services to a client side computing device including supporting a software download service, centralized account maintenance service, and data management service [ Welingkar, paragraph 0007 ].
25. Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rakowski et al. [ US Patent Application No 2007/0283011 ], in view of Welingkar et al. [ US Patent Application No 2008/0114830 ], and further in view of Kinnunen et al. [ US Patent Application No 2001/0018349 ].
26. As per claim 7, Rakowski in view of Welingkar does not specifically wherein the settings data package is implemented by extracting the setting configuration from the settings data package. Kinnunen discloses wherein the settings data package is implemented by extracting the setting configuration from the settings data package [ paragraph 0102 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rakowski, Welingkar and Kinnunen because the teaching of Kinnunen would enable to receive location information and checking profile information to select certain services to be provided to the mobile terminal [ Kinnunen, paragraph 0051 ].
Response to Arguments
27. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, and 29 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung [ US Patent Application No 2009/0138579 ] discloses remotely configured from a remote server using user interface information stored in the electronic device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446