Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 and Specification and Drawing Objections
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 25 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. Specifically, the meaning of “the discovery service engine comprises at least one port” is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter that was not described in the original specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The part of the Specification relied on by the Applicant for support, however, merely discloses “one or more open ports on which the discovery service engine is available.” There is no support for the aforementioned limitations.
Similarly, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the aforementioned subject matter of claim 25. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Similarly, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the aforementioned limitations must be shown or canceled therefrom. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. Objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of WO 0141398 (Gabrielsson).
Regarding claim 22, Summers teaches or suggests a system comprising: a first endpoint device including one or more processors (¶ 38) and storing executable instructions configured to manipulate a computer system (abs., ¶¶ 68, 69) to:
detect, by a first endpoint device, a second endpoint device (abs., ¶¶ 68, 69);
transmit, by the first endpoint device, a system services message to the second endpoint device wherein the available system services available to the second endpoint device comprise system services operating on the second endpoint device (¶¶ 74, 88);
receive, by the first endpoint device from the discovery service engine of the second endpoint device, in response to the resolution query, an available resolution for at least one system service available to the second endpoint device (¶¶ 76, 90); and
execute one or more applications associated with a functionality, wherein executing the one or more applications comprises transmitting, from the first endpoint device to the second endpoint device, data implementing the functionality using at least one available system service from the list of available system services based on use of the communication protocol and the addressable location of the available resolution (¶ 92).
Summers does not expressly disclose but Burch teaches or suggests the available resolution comprises an addressable location usable by a communication protocol (¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system and Burch’s addresses because a user may not know the correct address.
Summers does not expressly disclose but Gabrielsson teaches or suggests receiving, by the first endpoint device from a second endpoint device, resolution data indicating how to access a discovery service engine of the second endpoint device; accessing, by the first endpoint device, the discovery service engine of the second endpoint device based on the resolution data (4:3-16).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, and Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing to access data which is stored in a portable Bluetooth communication device.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests and receiving, by the first endpoint device from the second endpoint device, resolution service data associated with the second endpoint device (Burch ¶ 2). The teachings and suggestions of the references would have been combined for the same rationale as explained for claim 22.
Regarding claim 7, Summers teaches or suggests receiving, from the second endpoint device, a list of available system services available to the second endpoint device via a communication protocol of a plurality of communication protocols based on the resolution service data (¶¶ 110, 121).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the limitations of the claims as explained supra, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the resolution data comprises at least one communication protocol supported by the discovery service engine and an addressable location of the discovery service engine (Gabrielsson 4:3-16.) The teachings and suggestions of the references would have been combined for the same rationale as explained for claim 22.
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the discovery service engine comprises at least one port (Gabrielsson 4:3-16.) The teachings and suggestions of the references would have been combined for the same rationale as explained for claim 22.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of WO 0141398 (Gabrielsson) and US 20110113142 (Rangegowda).
Summers does not expressly disclose but Rangegowda teaches or suggests receiving, by the first endpoint device, a plurality of available resolutions from the second endpoint device based on at least the one available system service from the list of available system services, and wherein the available resolution is one of the plurality of available resolutions (¶ 43 available protocols).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing, and Rangegowda‘s plurality to accommodate different versions of IP addressing.
Claims 3, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of US 20130185647 (Yu).
Regarding claims 3, and 10, Summers does not expressly disclose but Yu teaches or suggests receiving, by the first endpoint device, a plurality of available resolutions from the second endpoint device based on at least the one available system service from the list of available system services, and wherein the available resolution is one of the plurality of available resolutions (¶ 43 available protocols).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing, and Rangegowda‘s plurality to accommodate different versions of IP addressing.
Regarding claim 20, Summers does not expressly disclose but Yu teaches or suggests the second endpoint device is proximate to the first endpoint device (Yu ¶ 48 range, ¶ 49 WLAN proximity).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, and Yu’s proximity because devices may be near each other.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of WO 0141398 (Gabrielsson), US 20160066048 (Ashbrook) and US 20140189117 (Niimura).
Regarding claim 4, Summers does not expressly disclose but Ashbrook teaches or suggests receiving, by the first endpoint device from the second endpoint device, a second list of available system services associated with a third endpoint device communicatively coupled to the second endpoint device (claims 32-33).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, and Ashbrook’s second list to gain access to further services.
Summers does not expressly disclose but Niimura teaches or suggests requesting, by the first endpoint device from the second endpoint device, a second available resolution for a system service from the second list of available system services (¶¶ 61-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing, Ashbrook’s second list, and Niimura’s requesting to be able to use a different version of IP.
Regarding claim 5, the latter combination teaches or suggests transmitting, by the first endpoint device to the third endpoint device, data implementing the functionality using the system service from the second list of available system services based on the second available resolution (Ashbrook claims 32-33, Niimura ¶¶ 61-62). The teachings and suggestions of the references would have been combined for the same rationale as explained for claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of WO 0141398 (Gabrielsson) and US 20170324790 (Li).
Summers does not expressly but Li teaches or suggests a detection protocol and a communications protocol (¶ 41).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing, and Li’s protocols so the second endpoint device is detected by a first communication protocol and the available resolution is received by a second communication protocol. A rationale to so would have been to combine the familiar elements from the references according to known methods to yield the predictable result of using protocols.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of US 20080256607 (Janedittakarn).
Summers does not expressly disclose but Janedittakarn teaches or suggests in response to detecting the second endpoint device, requesting, by the first endpoint device, access to a discovery service engine of the second endpoint device (¶¶ 36-37 and 52 request, 46 integral).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing, and Janedittakarn’s requesting to combine the familiar elements from the references according to known methods to yield the predictable result of preceding access with a request therefor.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of WO 0141398 (Gabrielsson) and US 20160066134 (Rybak).
Regarding claim 16, Summers does not expressly disclose but Rybak teaches or suggests the one or more applications are configured to render one or more notifications ( ¶ 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing, and Rybak’s notification so the one or more applications are configured to render one or more notifications. A rationale to so would have been to combine the familiar elements from the references according to known methods to yield the predictable result of informing a user of something that needs to be known.
Regarding claim 17, the latter combination teaches or suggests executing the one or more applications comprises rendering one or more notifications on a display electronically coupled to the second endpoint device (Id.). The teachings and suggestions of the references would have been combined for the same rationale as explained for claim 16.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of WO 0141398 (Gabrielsson) and US 20190028414 (Walker).
Regarding claim 18, Summers does not expressly disclose but Walker teaches or suggests the first endpoint device has a first operating system and the second endpoint device has a second operating system distinct from the first operating system ( ¶ 54 different OSs). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing, and Walker’s OSs so the first endpoint device has a first operating system and the second endpoint device has a second operating system distinct from the first operating system. A rationale to so would have been to combine the familiar elements from the references according to known methods to yield the predictable result of taking advantages of the features of different OSs.
Regarding claim 19, the latter combination teaches or suggests the second operating system has at least one different interface, language, memory management technique, communication protocol, encryption, or network stack from the first operating system (id. 54 different languages). The teachings and suggestions of the references would have been combined for the same rationale as explained for claim 19.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160006800 (Summers) in view of EP 2391087 (Burch) further in view of WO 0141398 (Gabrielsson) and US 20170153694 (Baldwin).
Summers does not expressly disclose but Baldwin teaches or suggests the second endpoint device includes a device ID data of a third endpoint device (claim 1 third device identifier).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Summers’ system, Burch’s addresses, Gabrielsson’s receiving/accessing, and Baldwin’s identifier so the second endpoint device includes a device ID data of a third endpoint device. A rationale to so would have been to combine the familiar elements from the references according to known methods to yield the predictable result of one device being aware of another.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered. The applicant argues that “Rangnekar does not involve the specific decentralized, device-to- device discovery mechanism described in claim 22.” (Resp. 20.) Rangnekar, however, has been replaced with Gabrielsson to teach or suggest the limitations as aforementioned.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20200204598 allows a communication session to be transferred between endpoints.
Conclusion
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 Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights