DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination (RCE) filed 09 February 2026.
Applicant has filed a number of supplemental replies since the filing of the RCE (09 February 2026). Supplemental replies are not entered as a matter of right. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111. However, Examiner is extending a courtesy to Applicant and entering the most recent supplemental reply, filed 27 February 2026. Accordingly, the submission filed 27 February 2026 is entered.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-19, 21-23, 25-29, 31, and 32 are currently pending.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-19, 21-23, 25-29, 31, and 32 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 09 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Applicant is reminded that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an application has res judicata effect and is the "law of the case" and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application. Therefore, a submission containing arguments without either an amendment of the rejected claims or the submission of a showing of facts will not be effective to remove such rejection.
Applicant indicates that “Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 16, 25-27, 31, and 32 are pending.” Remarks at 8. It is unclear if Applicant meant to cancel claims or if this is a typographical error. At present claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-19, 21-23, 25-29, 31, and 32 are pending.
Applicant argues that “the rejection should be withdrawn for at least the lack of anticipation of the claimed “Non-Brower Based Application” and “user input” as described below.” Remarks at 9. Applicant argues from pages 9-19 that SMS/text message is not the same as the claimed non-browser based application and argues “the Examine[r] errs in construing “non-browser based” to include “SMS” based on an overly broad definition.” Remarks at 18. Applicant does point to where Examiner made this assertion and indeed Examiner never made this assertion. Examiner does not comment one way or the other on whether or not SMS/text messaging is considered a non-browser based application. The rejection does not cite to text message passages of Hartsman in the rejection of the non-browser based application limitations. Hartsman teaches, for example, at ¶ 0075 that an example of a client is a software application such as Adobe Photoshop ®. Adobe Photoshop®, at the time of Hartsman’s filing, was not browser based. Applicant argues at page 28 that “just because an application has a graphical user interface and/or is downloaded that it can’t be assumed to be a non-browser based application because it can be a web browser. Indeed, in additional to Adobe Photoshop listed above, Paint Shop Pro 7 and the Ulead Photo Impact 7 appear to be web based editing software ….” “Can be” and “appear to be” are not factual statements. Factually, Adobe Photoshop®, at the time of Hartsman’s filing (14 March 2003), was not browser based. See the attached documents from Adobe Blog which show Adobe Photoshop® first introduced their browser based version in 2023.
PNG
media_image1.png
148
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(article dated 02/19/2025 provides a timeline of significant moments in Adobe Photoshop® history)
PNG
media_image2.png
341
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(article dated 09/27/2023)
Thus, Hartsman discloses a non-browser based application. Regarding the “user input,” Applicant has presented only arguments, no amendment and no showing of facts that were not already before the Board. The rejection stands.
Applicant appears to have tailored their response to the Board and not to Examiner. For example, on pages 26, 41, 43, 52, 55, 64, and 68 of Remarks, Applicant cites to a memo that allegedly places obligations on the Board and argues “Although this response is not being presented to the Board, per the Director’s memorandum the Office should provide a detailed explanation if it’s decision is different than the […] decisions described above” (and other similar statements). Examiner is not obligated to provide a response as requested by Applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01 October 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because a legible copy of the indicated document is not present in the final wrapper. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 18 February 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because a number of documents are present in the section with U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications. As indicated in 37 C.F.R. 1.98 “U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications must be listed in a section separately from citations of other documents.” Additionally, a number of documents, while potentially present in the file wrapper, are not legible and thus they have not been considered. As indicated in 37 C.F.R. 1.98 “A legible copy” is required for all NPL/Other documents. It has been placed in the application file, but the offending information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 10 and 25 recite “wherein the advertisement is stored in the mobile device memory to improve a mobile device performance, mobile device usability, user experience, and user convenience.” The phrase “to improve a mobile device performance, mobile device usability, user experience, and user convenience” is an intended result of a process step positively recited and is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04.
Claims 8 and 23 recite “results in a more secure system than storing the payment method on the mobile device.” The phrase “results in a more secure system than storing the payment method on the mobile device” is an intended result of a process step positively recited and is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 16, 25, 27, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. 2004/0181448 (“Hartsman”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Hartsman teaches a method and server for delivering an advertisement, comprising:
maintaining, at a remote management server, the advertisement (See “In an aspect of the invention, there is provided a marketing network system, comprising: a server having storage means for storing at least one marketing message” in ¶ 0017 and Fig. 1 showing the server 24 remote from the client 36.);
maintaining, at the remote management server, one or more targeting parameters (See “the network interface can be operable to receive a set of rules associated with the at least one marketing message, wherein the CPU is operable to store the set of rules in the message database” in ¶ 0029 and “The rule set is one or more rules that specify criteria for communicating the message to clients 36. The rules can be based on a number of inputs, including time of day, date, geographic location of a client, demographic information associated with a user of a client or the client itself” in ¶ 0087.);
selecting, at the remote management server, the advertisement based on the one or more targeting parameters (See “At step 320, server 24 examines the rule set received at step 310 and evaluates each rule in the rule set until it is determined that a message should be communicated or should not be communicated to client 36” in ¶ 0097.) in response to user input from a non-browser based application, wherein the non-browser based application receives the user input via a mobile device display (See “the client additionally has an input interface and the at least one marketing message allows the user to provide feedback to the server via the client network interface, and the server is operable to receive and record the feedback received from the client and selectively transmit the messages at least partially based on the feedback” in ¶ 0023 and ¶ 0075.), wherein the non-browser based application is a mobile operating system platform based application with a graphical user interface including a graphical icon (See “Clients 36 are connected via communications medium 32 to server 24. For purposes of this discussion, client shall mean any software, hardware or combination thereof that is operable to receive a message communicated by server 24 via communications medium 32 and visually present the message to a user of the client. Clients 36 can be software applications that can be written and compiled to execute on a computing device such as a personal computer, personal digital assistant, a mobile phone, a pager, etc. These computing devices can utilize any of a number of operating systems including Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Pocket PC, Palm OS®, Linux, Unix®, Mac IM OS X.1, etc., all of which generally provide networking APIs with which software applications executing thereon can receive and, in some cases, send information to a network” in ¶ 0059, “The desirable application can be a self-contained or can be networked. Some examples of such applications include an office application for word processing, a multimedia application for editing photos, a stock ticker, or a game to be played alone or cooperatively with others” in ¶ 0064 and Fig. 6 showing the graphical user interface with icon.) that is preinstalled or downloaded and installed on the mobile device (See “In one embodiment, clients 36 are software applications that are distributed via CDs enclosed in product packaging, but the software clients can also be distributed via pre-installation on computing devices, email, download from a networked computer, etc” in ¶ 0072.), the mobile device comprising the mobile device display, a mobile device processor, and a mobile device wireless interface (See “Clients 36 can be any computing device that is operable to be connected to a communications network and present information visually to a user. Hardware clients can include mobile communications devices such as mobile phones, wireless email devices, personal digital assistants, pagers, and can also include automated teller machines, information kiosks, and the like. The functionality of a hardware client can be provided by software, firmware or a combination thereof” in ¶ 0060 and “Now referring to FIG. 10, a client that is a computing device in accordance with another embodiment of the invention is shown generally at 600. Computing device 600, a mobile phone in this instance, is comprised of a radio antenna 604, an input interface 608, and a display 612. Radio antenna 604 acts as a network interface and is operable to send and receive wireless network communications” in ¶ 0110 wherein a processor is not explicitly recited; however, a processor is inherently present in all mobile phones.);
sending, from the remote management server, the advertisement to the non-browser based application running on a mobile device (See “Then, at step 130, the message is communicated to clients 36” in ¶ 0084.) and further wherein the non-browser based application displays the advertisement within the non-browser based application (See “A software or hardware client is distributed at a reduced, or no, cost to the user, with a portion of the client interface being dedicated to displaying advertising from a number of sponsors of the application. As the client is for a specific function, companies selling products or services associated with the functionality can sponsor the client and, in return, are allowed to provide advertisements to be displayed in the advertising area of the client display interface” in ¶ 0013.).
Regarding Claims 10 and 25, Hartsman further teaches the advertisement is stored in the mobile device memory to improve the mobile device performance, mobile device usability, user experience, and user convenience (See “Client 36 can immediately present these received messages or can store them for display at a later time, such as when client 36 is not in communication with the Internet” in ¶ 0085.).
Regarding Claims 12 and 27, Hartsman further teaches the non-browser based application is not a web browser (See “The desirable application can be a self-contained or can be networked. Some examples of such applications include an office application for word processing, a multimedia application for editing photos, a stock ticker, or a game to be played alone or cooperatively with others” in ¶ 0064.).
Regarding Claims 13 and 28, Hartsman further teaches the non-browser based application is not Short Messaging Service (SMS) (See “The desirable application can be a self-contained or can be networked. Some examples of such applications include an office application for word processing, a multimedia application for editing photos, a stock ticker, or a game to be played alone or cooperatively with others” in ¶ 0064.).
Regarding Claims 31 and 32, Hartsman further teaches the non-browser based application is configured to use a structured format and further wherein the structured format means the non- browser based application can store and display information in an organized and easily retrievable fashion (See “Clients 36 are connected via communications medium 32 to server 24. For purposes of this discussion, client shall mean any software, hardware or combination thereof that is operable to receive a message communicated by server 24 via communications medium 32 and visually present the message to a user of the client. Clients 36 can be software applications that can be written and compiled to execute on a computing device such as a personal computer, personal digital assistant, a mobile phone, a pager, etc. These computing devices can utilize any of a number of operating systems including Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Pocket PC, Palm OS®, Linux, Unix®, Mac IM OS X.1, etc., all of which generally provide networking APIs with which software applications executing thereon can receive and, in some cases, send information to a network” in ¶ 0059.).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 17-19, 22, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartsman in view of U.S. 2010/0075666 (“Garner”).
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Hartsman further teaches the one or more targeting parameters comprise personal information (See “The message rules can be based on quota criteria, time criteria, location criteria, demographics criteria, etc” in ¶ 0019.).
Hartsman does not expressly teach the one or more targeting parameters comprise purchase transaction related information.
However, Garner teaches the one or more targeting parameters comprise purchase transaction related information (See “In another embodiment based on the data stored on the server with regards a user's recent transactions, a targeted commercial promotion (in the form of text and an accompanying image) will be uploaded to the to the user's phone next time they connect to the server” in ¶ 0138.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Garner to utilize purchase transaction related information to target the users. The motivation it to provide a more targeted advertisement; the more information known about a user and utilized for targeting results in a more targeted advertisement.
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Hartsman further teaches personal information comprises one or more of user location, gender, age, interests, affiliation userID, pageid, zip code, area code, or occupation (See “The rules can be based on a number of inputs, including time of day, date, geographic location of a client, demographic information associated with a user of a client or the client itself, a quota for the number of times a message is to be communicated (per user or per group of users, for example), the preferences of a user of the client, etc” in ¶ 0087.).
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, Hartsman does not expressly teach purchase transaction related information comprises one or more of information related to historical payment transaction, information related to real-time payment transaction, information related to contactless transactions made using the mobile device, information related to internet commerce, information related to bill pay, information related to top spend categories, information related to merchants, information related to storage of banking information, information related to accessing account balance, information related to accessing payment history, information related to accessing funds transfer , information related to storing tickets, information related to storing receipts, information related to coupons, information related to transactions made by the user but not through the mobile device, and information related to raw data downloaded from banks.
However, Garner teaches purchase transaction related information comprises one or more of information related to historical payment transaction, information related to real-time payment transaction, information related to contactless transactions made using the mobile device, information related to internet commerce, information related to bill pay, information related to top spend categories, information related to merchants, information related to storage of banking information, information related to accessing account balance, information related to accessing payment history, information related to accessing funds transfer , information related to storing tickets, information related to storing receipts, information related to coupons, information related to transactions made by the user but not through the mobile device, and information related to raw data downloaded from banks (See “In another embodiment based on the data stored on the server with regards a user's recent transactions, a targeted commercial promotion (in the form of text and an accompanying image) will be uploaded to the to the user's phone next time they connect to the server” in ¶ 0138.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Garner to utilize purchase transaction related information to target the users. The motivation it to provide a more targeted advertisement; the more information known about a user and utilized for targeting results in a more targeted advertisement.
Regarding Claims 7 and 22, Hartsman does not expressly teach the non-browser based application permits a user of the mobile device to conduct payment transactions wherein payment transactions compromise one or more of Near Field Communication (NFC) contactless payment, mobile/internet commerce to purchase one or more products, storage of digital artifacts, accessing banking service and further wherein the banking services include account balance, payment history, bill pay, and fund transfer.
However, Garner teaches the non-browser based application permits a user of the mobile device to conduct payment transactions wherein payment transactions compromise one or more of Near Field Communication (NFC) contactless payment, mobile/internet commerce to purchase one or more products, storage of digital artifacts, accessing banking service and further wherein the banking services include account balance, payment history, bill pay, and fund transfer (See “In a further embodiment, there are three ways of handling payments within the application: Prompt user to touch a contactless credit/debit card to the phone. Details are read from the phone and passed over the air to the merchant. Pay for goods from a credit/debit card stored on the secure chip on the phone. Pay for goods from a PIN protected wallet” in ¶¶ 0184-0187.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Garner to permit contactless payments. The motivation is to provide additional functionality for the user. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 8 and 23, Hartsman does not expressly teach a payment method related to the payment transactions is maintained at the remote management server results in a more secure system than storing the payment method on the mobile device.
However, Garner teaches a payment method related to the payment transactions is maintained at the remote management server results in a more secure system than storing the payment method on the mobile device (See “The remote server may store some or all of the following information: name, address, mobile number, credit card details, transaction history, additional data gathered through particular types of promotions, and data derived from analysis of raw data” in ¶ 0102.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Garner to store payment methods at a server. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5, 14, 20, and 29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartsman in view of U.S. 2012/0196686 (“Karsten”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, Hartsman further teaches the non-browser based application displays the advertisement offline, wherein offline means the non-browser based application receives the advertisement through a wireless connection of the mobile device to a wireless network; the non-browser based application displays the advertisement while the mobile device maintains the wireless connection to the wireless network (See “where client 36 is a software application executing on a personal computer operable to be connected to the Internet, client 36 can be operable to automatically detect a connection to the Internet and send a request for updated content/messages to server 24 via network interface 68. Client 36 can additionally send an identifier notifying server 24 of its identity. Upon receipt of this request for updated content from client 36, server 24 communicates one or more messages to client 36 for presentation via display interface 84. Client 36 can immediately present these received messages or can store them for display at a later time, such as when client 36 is not in communication with the Internet” in ¶ 0085.).
Hartsman does not expressly teach the method further comprises: losing the wireless connection of the mobile device to the wireless network while the non-browser based application displays the advertisement; and after losing the wireless connection, continuing to display the advertisement within the non-browser based application.
However, Karsten teaches the method further comprises: losing the wireless connection of the mobile device to the wireless network while the non-browser based application displays the advertisement; and after losing the wireless connection, continuing to display the advertisement within the non-browser based application (See “in response to detecting the disconnection of a client device associated with a given player from the game server, pausing the game; and in response to the disconnected client device reconnecting to the game server: joining the given player to the paused game; and resuming the game with the given player” in ¶ 0138 and “Loss of signal could trigger an offline game, and the user could automatically be returned to an online game when the signal is reacquired” in ¶ 0408.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Karsten to continue to display after loss of connection. The motivation is to provide the use with a continuous experience regardless of connection status, as demonstrated by Karsten.
Regarding Claims 14 and 29, Hartsman does not expressly teach upon the condition that the mobile device loses connection with a wireless network, the non-browser based application monitors for access to the wireless network and automatically reconnects to the wireless network when the wireless network is available n.
However, Karsten teaches upon the condition that the mobile device loses connection with a wireless network, the non-browser based application monitors for access to the wireless network and automatically reconnects to the wireless network when the wireless network is available (See “In a further aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of operating an online multiplayer game, wherein a plurality of players participate in the game using (preferably mobile) client devices connected to a game server over a communications network (preferably a mobile telecommunications network), the method comprising: monitoring the state of the connection of each client device to the game server; in response to detecting the disconnection of a client device associated with a given player from the game server, pausing the game; and in response to the disconnected client device reconnecting to the game server: joining the given player to the paused game; and resuming the game with the given player” in ¶ 0138.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Karsten to establish a reconnection routine. The motivation, as demonstrated in Karsten, is to provide the user with as little downtime as possible.
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartsman in view of U.S. 2007/0130294 (“Nishio”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 21, Hartsman further teaches the remote management server is configured to store the user ID for a user's mobile devices (See “each client is provided a unique identification code, such as a number stored on a Subscriber Identity Module for a mobile phone, and is recorded in database 28, along with personal information provided by users of clients 36 upon registration” in ¶ 0081.).
Hartsman does not expressly teach a plurality of mobile devices; and further wherein a configuration means the remote management server scales.
However, Nishio teaches a plurality of mobile devices; and further wherein a configuration means the remote management server scales (See “The server 32 described herein supports the independent intelligent devices 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 and is capable of receiving and storing a unique identifier for each of the intelligent devices 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24. The server 32 incorporates a highly scaled web server front-end that may be non-HTTP protocol based as well as a large scale transactional database 38 backend. For security reasons, all encryption keys are stored in an encrypted form and only exist in an unencrypted form immediately prior to use” in ¶ 0032.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Nishio to scale a server to store a plurality of user IDs. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartsman in view of U.S. 2007/0256082 (“Bhagwan”).
Regarding Claims 11 and 26, Hartsman does not expressly teach the non-browser based application is stored in a local mobile device memory during an execution of the non-browser based application, a bulk storage mobile device memory for when the non-browser based application is not being executed, and a cache mobile device memory to provide temporary storage of at least some of the non-browser based application in order to reduce the number of times the non-browser based application must be retrieved from the bulk storage mobile device memory during the execution.
However, Bhagwan teaches the non-browser based application is stored in a local mobile device memory during an execution of the non-browser based application, a bulk storage mobile device memory for when the non-browser based application is not being executed, and a cache mobile device memory to provide temporary storage of at least some of the non-browser based application in order to reduce the number of times the non-browser based application must be retrieved from the bulk storage mobile device memory during the execution (See “Memory 504 may comprise any known type of data storage and/or transmission media, including bulk storage, magnetic media, optical media, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), a data cache, a data object, etc. Memory 504 includes computer program code comprising application monitoring and control system 514. Local memory elements of memory 504 are employed during actual execution of the program code of application monitoring and control system 514. Cache memory elements of memory 504 provide temporary storage of at least some program code in order to reduce the number of times code must be retrieved from bulk storage during execution” in ¶ 0080.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Bhagwan to store the application as described in Bhagwan. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 15 and 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartsman in view of U.S. 2009/0103433 (“Katis”).
Regarding Claims 15 and 30, Hartsman does not expressly teach the non-browser based application sends a request to the remote management server for retransmission of the advertisement if it has not received the advertisement from the remote management server within a certain period of time.
However, Katis teaches the non-browser based application sends a request to the remote management server for retransmission of the advertisement if it has not received the advertisement from the remote management server within a certain period of time (See “Media is considered missing if an out of sequence packet does not arrive after a predetermined threshold period of time 603. If the packet arrives before the threshold, then it is no longer considered missing. On the other hand if the packet does not arrive after the threshold is exceed, then it is deemed missing. With missing packets, a low priority request for retransmission is made 604 and the time of the request is noted 605 in the DNQS 32. This process is repeated until the missing packet is received” in ¶ 0201.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Hartsman and Katis to establish a retransmission protocol. The motivation, as demonstrated in Katis, is to ensure all requested media is received.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622