DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to RCE filed on 1/7/2026.
Claims 1 and 11 – 14 are amended.
Claims 1 – 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/7/2026 has been entered.
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 – 4, 12 and 14 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al (USPAT 8661434, hereinafter Liang), in view of Bates et al (USPAT 5966512, hereinafter Bates), and further in view of Aiyar et al (US 20190235901, hereinafter Aiyar).
As per claim 1, Liang discloses: An app migration system, comprising at least one processor configured to:
place [an app] in one of an inside and an outside of a first virtual space; wherein the first virtual space is either a first public space, a first private space, or an out-space is out of the first public space and the first private space, and wherein the first virtual space has a first permission setting; (Liang figure 2 and col 2, lines 54 – 56: “The computer 200 runs a plurality of virtual machines 210 (i.e., 210-1, 210-2, 210-3, and 210-4). Because each virtual machine has its own operating system”; col 2, lines 61 – 64: “A network profile 220 may comprise hardware, software, or firmware that provides information about configurations, topology, addresses, computer security, and other settings on the network 260”.)
set, for the app, a first permission corresponding to a placement location of the app in the first virtual space corresponding to the first permission setting; (Liang col 3, line 22 – 38: “… the security module 213 or another module running in the virtual machine 210 may be configured to automatically indicate in the security profile 214 the network profile of the computer the virtual machine 210 is running on.”)
migrate the app from the first virtual space to a second virtual space; (Liang col 3, lines 49 – 55: “FIG. 4 schematically illustrates movement of a virtual machine from one computer in one network to another computer in another network in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. In the example of FIG. 4, the virtual machine 210-1 is migrated from the computer 200 (see arrow 401) in the computer network 260 to a computer hardware 400 ("computer 400") in a computer network 460”; col 3, lines 60 – 65: “Like the computer 200, the computer 400 runs a plurality of virtual machines 410 (i.e., 410-1, 410-2) and the virtual machine 210-1. The computer 200 also includes a network profile 420, which is the same as the network profile 220 except that the network profile 420 reflects information about the network 460”.)
wherein the second virtual space is either the second public space, the second private space, or the out-space, and wherein the second virtual space has a second permission setting which is different than the first permission setting; set, for the migrated app, a second permission corresponding to a migration destination of the app in the second virtual space corresponding to the second permission setting. (Liang col 4, lines 13 – 26: “the security module 213 reads the network profile 420 (see arrow 501) to automatically (i.e., under program control rather than manually by a user or administrator) update the security profile 214 with information it needs to provide computer security functions upon execution in the computer 400. For example, the network profile 420 may indicate the ports of the firewall 430 (see FIG. 4) that are normally left open for use by security modules. In that case, the security profile 214 may be automatically updated with port information of the firewall 430, enabling the security module 213 to use the open ports of the firewall 430 to perform computer security function. The security module 213 may thus be readily migrated to the computer 100 without compromising security”.)
Liang did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the app comprises a groupware app, joined by at least one user in a user group in which information is shareable;
wherein the app includes an actual data portion and wherein the actual data portion corresponds to the information exchanged within the app;
wherein the app has same function as a spreadsheet and allows the at least one user to view, add, edit, and delete records:
wherein the first public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate;
wherein information in the first public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the first public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the first public space;
wherein the first private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate wherein information in the first private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the first private space:
wherein the migration of the app from the first virtual space to a second virtual space in one of (A) a route between the first public space and a second private space, (B) a route between the first public space and the out-space, (c) a route between the first private space and a second public space, (D) a route between the first private space to the out-space, (E) a route between the out-space to the second public space, and (F) a route between the out-space and the second private space;
wherein the second public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate;
wherein information in the second public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the second public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the second public space;
wherein the second private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate;
wherein information in the second private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the second private space:
However, Bates teaches:
wherein the app comprises a groupware app, joined by at least one user in a user group in which information is shareable; wherein the app includes an actual data portion and wherein the actual data portion corresponds to the information exchanged within the app; wherein the app has same function as a spreadsheet and allows the at least one user to view, add, edit, and delete records; (Bates col 1, lines 34 – 47: “A shared-data object is one that is simultaneously accessible to multiple users over the network. Such data objects can include, for example, word-processing documents, design drawings, and spreadsheets. Users access the shared-data object via a groupware tool, such as a text-editor or data-base management facility. A user accesses shared-data objects through the multi-user interface provided by the groupware tool. The interface typically includes a video monitor under the control of the user's local workstation, through which views of the shared-data objects are displayed. The interface is supported by software, allowing multiple simultaneous access to an object with the right to manipulate the contents of the object.”; col 10, lines 46 – 50: “hen editor 168 continues to block 812, where editor 168 determines whether the user has done a change document operation. Examples of change document operations are inserting, deleting, or replacing text.”.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bates into that of Liang in order to have the app comprises a groupware app, joined by at least one user in a user group in which information is shareable; wherein the app includes an actual data portion and wherein the actual data portion corresponds to the information exchanged within the app; wherein the app has same function as a spreadsheet and allows the at least one user to view, add, edit, and delete records. Liang figure 4 teaches the moving/migrating sessions from one host to another. One of ordinary skill can see that the inventive concept of Liang can easily be applied to different cloud-based software such as groupware to enjoy the same benefits, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Aiyar teaches:
wherein the first public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the first public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the first public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the first public space; wherein the first private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate wherein information in the first private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the first private space; wherein the second public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the second public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the second public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the second public space; wherein the second private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the second private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the second private space; (Aiyar [00016]: private cluster to public cloud; )
wherein the migration of the app from the first virtual space to a second virtual space in one of (A) a route between the first public space and a second private space, (B) a route between the first public space and the out-space, (c) a route between the first private space and a second public space, (D) a route between the first private space to the out-space, (E) a route between the out-space to the second public space, and (F) a route between the out-space and the second private space; (Aiyar figure 5 and [0003])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of AIyar into that of Liang and Bates in order to have the first public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the first public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the first public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the first public space; wherein the first private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate wherein information in the first private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the first private space; wherein the second public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the second public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the second public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the second public space; wherein the second private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the second private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the second private space. Liang figure 4 teaches movement of a virtual machine from one computer in one network to another computer in another network while configuring the security certificate to be compatible with the destination network. One of ordinary skill can see that the inventive concept of Liang can easily be applied to migrate from private cloud to public cloud is merely a specific example of the teachings of Liang, and thus applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar further teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to set, for the app, a permission specific to the app, and wherein the settings of the permission specific to the app are maintained even when the app is migrated. (Liang col 4, lines 13 – 26.)
As per claim 3, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar further teach:
The app migration system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to control access to the app based on a logical product of the permission corresponding to the migration destination of the migrated app and the permission specific to the app. (Liang col 3, lines 22 - 40.)
As per claim 4, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar further teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the app includes a plurality of apps, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: set a permission common to the plurality of apps; and control access to the app for which the permission has been set, based on a logical product of the set permission and another permission. (Liang col 3, lines 22 - 40.)
As per claim 12, it is the non-transitory information storage medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar further teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein: the first public space is the space that can be joined by all users, the first private space is the space that can be joined by all users, information in the first private space can be viewed only by members of the first private space, and the placement is the inside of the space or the outside of the space or the first public space or the first private space. (Aiyar [0003])
As per claim 15, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar further teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the first virtual space is a place in which users of the cloud-type groupware app communicate to/from each other. (Bates col 1, lines 34 – 47.)
As per claim 16, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar further teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the actual data portion is stored in a data storage. (Liang figure 1: data storage device.)
Claim(s) 5 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, Bates and Aiyar, and further in view of Jaudon et al (US 20120204235, hereinafter Jaudon).
As per claim 16, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar did not teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether a user instructing the migration of the app has an app management permission and the user has an app creation permission at the migration destination of the app; and migrate the app based on a result of the determination.
However, Jaudon teaches:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether a user instructing the migration of the app has an app management permission and the user has an app creation permission at the migration destination of the app; and migrate the app based on a result of the determination. (Jaudon [0033] and [0049])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jaudon into that of Liang, Bates and Aiyar in order to determine whether a user instructing the migration of the app has an app management permission and the user has an app creation permission at the migration destination of the app; and migrate the app based on a result of the determination. Jaudon has shown that the claimed limitations are merely commonly known and available options governing migration of the app, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 6, the combination of Liang, Bates, Aiyar and Jaudon further teach:
The app migration system according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to further determine whether the user instructing the migration of the app has a permission to manage the space, when a migration source of the app is in the inside of the space. (Jaudon [0033] and [0049])
As per claim 7, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar did not teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether a user instructing the migration of the app has an app management permission and the user has an app creation permission at the migration destination of the app; and migrate the app based on a result of the determination.
However, Jaudon teaches:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to restrict the migration of the app relating to the space which is set so that information to be shared therein is isolated. (Jaudon [0027]: sessions are isolated.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Jaudon into that of Liang, Bates and Aiyar in order to restrict the migration of the app relating to the space which is set so that information to be shared therein is isolated. Jaudon has shown that the claimed limitations are merely commonly known and available options governing migration of the app, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 8 – 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian, Bates and Aiyar, and further in view of Igelka et al (US 20220027182, hereinafter Igelka).
As per claim 8, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar did not teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: migrate the app when a predetermined condition is satisfied; and notify a user instructing the migration of the app of a reason that the predetermined condition is not satisfied, when the predetermined condition is not satisfied.
However, Igelka teaches:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: migrate the app when a predetermined condition is satisfied; and notify a user instructing the migration of the app of a reason that the predetermined condition is not satisfied, when the predetermined condition is not satisfied. (Igelka [0027] and [0070])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Igelka into that of Liang, Bates and Aiyar in order to migrate the app when a predetermined condition is satisfied; and notify a user instructing the migration of the app of a reason that the predetermined condition is not satisfied, when the predetermined condition is not satisfied. Igelka [0027] and [0070] has shown that the claimed limitation are merely commonly known and used steps for finishing migration of an application, thus applicants have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 9, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar did not teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: migrate the app when a predetermined condition is satisfied; search for the space to which the app is allowed to be migrated based on the predetermined condition; receive, from among results of the search, designation of the migration destination performed by the user instructing the migration of the app; and migrate the app to the migration destination designated by the user.
However, Igelka teaches:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: migrate the app when a predetermined condition is satisfied; search for the space to which the app is allowed to be migrated based on the predetermined condition; receive, from among results of the search, designation of the migration destination performed by the user instructing the migration of the app; and migrate the app to the migration destination designated by the user. (Igelka [0027] and [0070])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Igelka into that of Liang, Bates and Aiyar in order to migrate the app when a predetermined condition is satisfied; search for the space to which the app is allowed to be migrated based on the predetermined condition; receive, from among results of the search, designation of the migration destination performed by the user instructing the migration of the app; and migrate the app to the migration destination designated by the user. Igelka [0027] and [0070] has shown that the claimed limitation are merely commonly known and used steps for finishing migration of an application, thus applicants have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 17, the combination of Liang, Bates, Aiyar and Igelka further teach:
The app migration system according to claim 8, wherein the condition is a condition for determining whether or not to permit the migration of the app. (Igelka [0027] and [0070])
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, Bates and Aiyar, and further in view of Dai et al (US 20170286158, hereinafter Dai).
As per claim 10, the combination of Liang, Bates and Aiyar did not teach:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to set the app as a search target in the space when the migration destination of the app is in the inside of the space.
However, Dai teaches:
The app migration system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to set the app as a search target in the space when the migration destination of the app is in the inside of the space. (Dai [0116])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dai into that of Liang, Bates and Aiyar in order to set the app as a search target in the space when the migration destination of the app is in the inside of the space. Dai [0116] has shown that the claimed limitation are merely commonly known and used steps for finishing migration of an application, thus applicants have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 11, Liang discloses: An app migration system, comprising at least one processor configured to:
place a groupware [an app] in one of an inside and an outside of a first virtual space; wherein the first virtual space is either a first public space, a first private space, or a first guest space, and wherein the first virtual space has a first permission setting; (Liang figure 2 and col 2, lines 54 – 56: “The computer 200 runs a plurality of virtual machines 210 (i.e., 210-1, 210-2, 210-3, and 210-4). Because each virtual machine has its own operating system”; col 2, lines 61 – 64: “A network profile 220 may comprise hardware, software, or firmware that provides information about configurations, topology, addresses, computer security, and other settings on the network 260”.)
set, for the app, a first permission corresponding to a placement location of the app in the first virtual space corresponding to the first permission setting; (Liang col 3, line 22 – 38: “… the security module 213 or another module running in the virtual machine 210 may be configured to automatically indicate in the security profile 214 the network profile of the computer the virtual machine 210 is running on.”)
migrate the app from the first virtual space to a second virtual space; (Liang col 3, lines 49 – 55: “FIG. 4 schematically illustrates movement of a virtual machine from one computer in one network to another computer in another network in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. In the example of FIG. 4, the virtual machine 210-1 is migrated from the computer 200 (see arrow 401) in the computer network 260 to a computer hardware 400 ("computer 400") in a computer network 460”; col 3, lines 60 – 65: “Like the computer 200, the computer 400 runs a plurality of virtual machines 410 (i.e., 410-1, 410-2) and the virtual machine 210-1. The computer 200 also includes a network profile 420, which is the same as the network profile 220 except that the network profile 420 reflects information about the network 460”.)
wherein the second virtual space is either the second public space, the second private space, or the second guest space, and wherein the second virtual space has a second permission setting which is different than the first permission setting; set, for the migrated app, a second permission corresponding to a migration destination of the app in the second virtual space corresponding to the second permission setting. (Liang col 4, lines 13 – 26: “the security module 213 reads the network profile 420 (see arrow 501) to automatically (i.e., under program control rather than manually by a user or administrator) update the security profile 214 with information it needs to provide computer security functions upon execution in the computer 400. For example, the network profile 420 may indicate the ports of the firewall 430 (see FIG. 4) that are normally left open for use by security modules. In that case, the security profile 214 may be automatically updated with port information of the firewall 430, enabling the security module 213 to use the open ports of the firewall 430 to perform computer security function. The security module 213 may thus be readily migrated to the computer 100 without compromising security”.)
Liang did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the app comprises a groupware app, joined by at least one user in a user group in which information is shareable;
wherein the app includes an actual data portion and wherein the actual data portion corresponds to the information exchanged within the app;
wherein the app has same function as a spreadsheet and allows the at least one user to view, add, edit, and delete records:
wherein the first public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate;
wherein information in the first public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the first public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the first public space;
wherein the first private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate wherein information in the first private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the first private space:
wherein the migration of the app from the first virtual space to a second virtual space in one of (A) a route between the first public space and a second private space, (B) a route between the first public space and the out-space, (c) a route between the first private space and a second public space, (D) a route between the first private space to the out-space, (E) a route between the out-space to the second public space, and (F) a route between the out-space and the second private space;
wherein the second public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate;
wherein information in the second public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the second public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the second public space;
wherein the second private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate;
wherein information in the second private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the second private space:
and set the app as a search target in the another one of the plurality of spaces, when the migration destination of the app is in the inside of another one of the plurality of spaces;
However, Bates teaches:
wherein the app comprises a groupware app, joined by at least one user in a user group in which information is shareable; wherein the app includes an actual data portion and wherein the actual data portion corresponds to the information exchanged within the app; wherein the app has same function as a spreadsheet and allows the at least one user to view, add, edit, and delete records; (Bates col 1, lines 34 – 47: “A shared-data object is one that is simultaneously accessible to multiple users over the network. Such data objects can include, for example, word-processing documents, design drawings, and spreadsheets. Users access the shared-data object via a groupware tool, such as a text-editor or data-base management facility. A user accesses shared-data objects through the multi-user interface provided by the groupware tool. The interface typically includes a video monitor under the control of the user's local workstation, through which views of the shared-data objects are displayed. The interface is supported by software, allowing multiple simultaneous access to an object with the right to manipulate the contents of the object.”; col 10, lines 46 – 50: “hen editor 168 continues to block 812, where editor 168 determines whether the user has done a change document operation. Examples of change document operations are inserting, deleting, or replacing text.”.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bates into that of Liang in order to have the app comprises a groupware app, joined by at least one user in a user group in which information is shareable; wherein the app includes an actual data portion and wherein the actual data portion corresponds to the information exchanged within the app; wherein the app has same function as a spreadsheet and allows the at least one user to view, add, edit, and delete records. Liang figure 4 teaches the moving/migrating sessions from one host to another. One of ordinary skill can see that the inventive concept of Liang can easily be applied to different cloud-based software such as groupware to enjoy the same benefits, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Todd teaches:
wherein the first public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the first public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the first public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the first public space; wherein the first private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate wherein information in the first private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the first private space; wherein the second public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the second public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the second public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the second public space; wherein the second private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the second private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the second private space; (Aiyar [00016]: private cluster to public cloud;)
wherein the migration of the app from the first virtual space to a second virtual space in one of (A) a route between the first public space and a second private space, (B) a route between the first public space and the out-space, (c) a route between the first private space and a second public space, (D) a route between the first private space to the out-space, (E) a route between the out-space to the second public space, and (F) a route between the out-space and the second private space; (Aiyar figure 5 and [0003])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of AIyar into that of Liang and Bates in order to have the first public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the first public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the first public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the first public space; wherein the first private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate wherein information in the first private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the first private space; wherein the second public space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the second public space is not only viewable by users who have participated in the second public space, but also viewable by users who have not participated in the second public space; wherein the second private space is a space in which all users belonging to the user group can participate; wherein information in the second private space can be viewed only by users who have participated in the second private space. Liang figure 4 teaches movement of a virtual machine from one computer in one network to another computer in another network while configuring the security certificate to be compatible with the destination network. One of ordinary skill can see that the inventive concept of Liang can easily be applied to migrate from private cloud to public cloud is merely a specific example of the teachings of Liang, and thus applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Dai teaches:
and set the app as a search target in the another one of the plurality of spaces, when the migration destination of the app is in the inside of another one of the plurality of spaces; (Dai [0116])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dai into that of Liang, Bates and Aiyar in order to set the app as a search target in the space when the migration destination of the app is in the inside of the space. Dai [0116] has shown that the claimed limitation are merely commonly known and used steps for finishing migration of an application between different domains, thus applicants have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 13, it is the non-transitory information storage medium variant of claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 17 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights