Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s arguments/filing filed on February 17, 2026
Claims 32, 33, 42 and 43 are cancelledClaims 28, 29, 34, and 37-39 are amendedClaims 48-51 are newClaims 28-31, 34-41, and 44-51 are pending
Examiner Note: Figure 1 of the specification was used for determining the relative degree of sensitivity and/or criticality as cited in claims 35 and 45.
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph 0094 of the specification describe the processor as being a hardware element that may be a general purpose processor, a special purpose processor, a conventional processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in association with a DSP core, a controller, a microcontroller, Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGAs) circuits, any other type of integrated circuit (IC), a state machine, and the like.
Response to Arguments
1.) Applicant’s amendment to claims 28, 29, and 37-39 filed on 2/17/2026 regarding, “detecting addition of a new electronic device to a network comprising a plurality of electronic devices, the plurality of electronic devices including a first electronic device before the addition of the new electronic device, the first electronic device having access rights “ necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Therefore, Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 28-31, 34-41, and 44-47 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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.
1.) Claims 28-34, 37-44, and 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120005729, Amitai in view of US 9368006, Gorilovsky
In regards to claim 28, Amitai teaches a method comprising: detecting addition of a new electronic device to a network comprising a plurality of electronic devices , the plurality of electronic devices including a first electronic device before the addition of the new electronic device, the first electronic device having access rights (US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0021, In some embodiments upon connection of a device 100 to port 102 or an association of a device 100 with a network element, a notification or link up SNMP trap may be sent from network device 104 to for example policy enforcer 107. This notification message may include for example information indicating that a device 100 has connected with port 102, or may include other information.) and Amitai does not teach determining that a first characteristic of the new electronic device is similar to a corresponding first characteristic of the first electronic device granting to the new electronic device access rights, wherein the access rights granted to the new electronic device are based on the access rights of the first electronic device However, Gorilovsky teaches determining that a first characteristic of the new electronic device is similar to a corresponding first characteristic of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2) granting to the new electronic device access rights, wherein the access rights granted to the new electronic device are based on the access rights of the first electronic device (US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 13-21, The second device 1 can reproduce the tactile events from the first device, for example, when one user taps the sensor 4 on his wearable device 1, thus, the proposed device 1 permits nearly instantaneous communication of tactile events and “feelings” between two (or more) such devices, when the devices in question are connected to the network, and do so automatically, without further intervention from the user.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amitai with the teaching of Gorilovsky because a user would have been motivated to use the sensor information, taught by Gorilovsky, in order to identify similarities between device in the network taught by Amitai(Gorilovsky, col. 3, lines 2-6)
In regards to claim 29, Amitai teaches a method comprising: detecting addition of a new electronic device to a network comprising a plurality of electronic devices, the plurality of electronic devices including a first electronic device before the addition ofthe new electronic device, the first electronic device having access rights(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0021, In some embodiments upon connection of a device 100 to port 102 or an association of a device 100 with a network element, a notification or link up SNMP trap may be sent from network device 104 to for example policy enforcer 107. This notification message may include for example information indicating that a device 100 has connected with port 102, or may include other information.);determining that a first characteristic of the new electronic device is similar to a corresponding first characteristic of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2);determining that a second characteristic of the new electronic device is similar to a corresponding second characteristic of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2) and Amitai does not teach granting the new electronic device access rights However, Gorilovsky teaches granting the new electronic device access rights (US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 13-21, The second device 1 can reproduce the tactile events from the first device, for example, when one user taps the sensor 4 on his wearable device 1, thus, the proposed device 1 permits nearly instantaneous communication of tactile events and “feelings” between two (or more) such devices, when the devices in question are connected to the network, and do so automatically, without further intervention from the user.); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amitai with the teaching of Gorilovsky because a user would have been motivated to use the sensor information, taught by Gorilovsky, in order to identify similarities between device in the network taught by Amitai(Gorilovsky, col. 3, lines 2-6)
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the method of claim 28, wherein the first characteristic comprises at least one of: a device type; a criticality characteristic, wherein a value assigned to an electronic device for the criticality characteristic corresponds to an extent to which operating the corresponding electronic device has an effect in the physical world; and a sensitivity characteristic, wherein a value assigned to an electronic device for the sensitivity characteristic corresponds to a level of confidentiality of data available through the corresponding electronic device(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0004, calculating a score for the device based on the grades, modifying a score based on an association history of the device with the network, and authorizing access of the device if the score reaches a pre-defined level.).
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the method of claim 29, wherein the second characteristic comprises at least one of: a device type; a criticality characteristic, wherein a value assigned to an electronic device for the criticality characteristic corresponds to an extent to which operating the corresponding electronic device has an effect in the physical world; and a sensitivity characteristic, wherein a value assigned to an electronic device for the sensitivity characteristic corresponds to a level of confidentiality of data available through the corresponding electronic device(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0004, calculating a score for the device based on the grades, modifying a score based on an association history of the device with the network, and authorizing access of the device if the score reaches a pre-defined level.).
In regards to claim 34, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the method of claim 28, wherein the access rights for the new electronic device are similar to or identical to the access rights for the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6 and lines 13-21, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2… The second device 1 can reproduce the tactile events from the first device, for example, when one user taps the sensor 4 on his wearable device 1, thus, the proposed device 1 permits nearly instantaneous communication of tactile events and “feelings” between two (or more) such devices, when the devices in question are connected to the network, and do so automatically, without further intervention from the user.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amitai with the teaching of Gorilovsky because a user would have been motivated to use the sensor information, taught by Gorilovsky, in order to identify similarities between device in the network taught by Amitai(Gorilovsky, col. 3, lines 2-6)
In regards to claim 37, Amitai teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform: detecting addition of a new electronic device to a network comprising a plurality of electronic devices , the plurality of electronic devices including a first electronic device before the addition of the new electronic device, the first electronic device having access rights(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0021, In some embodiments upon connection of a device 100 to port 102 or an association of a device 100 with a network element, a notification or link up SNMP trap may be sent from network device 104 to for example policy enforcer 107. This notification message may include for example information indicating that a device 100 has connected with port 102, or may include other information.) determining that a first characteristic of the new electronic device is similar to a corresponding first characteristic of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2); Amitai does not teach granting to the new electronic device access rights, wherein the access rights granted to the new electronic device are based on the access rights of the first electronic device However, Gorilovsky teaches granting to the new electronic device access rights, wherein the access rights granted to the new electronic device are based on the access rights of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 13-21, The second device 1 can reproduce the tactile events from the first device, for example, when one user taps the sensor 4 on his wearable device 1, thus, the proposed device 1 permits nearly instantaneous communication of tactile events and “feelings” between two (or more) such devices, when the devices in question are connected to the network, and do so automatically, without further intervention from the user.);. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amitai with the teaching of Gorilovsky because a user would have been motivated to use the sensor information, taught by Gorilovsky, in order to identify similarities between device in the network taught by Amitai(Gorilovsky, col. 3, lines 2-6)
In regards to claim 38, Amitai teaches a apparatus comprising: a processor(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0009, a system may include a memory that may store criteria for granting access to the network, and a processor that may collect data from the device); memory operably coupled to the processor, wherein the memory has stored instructions that, when executed by a processor(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0009, a system may include a memory that may store criteria for granting access to the network, and a processor that may collect data from the device), cause the processor to perform: detecting addition of a new electronic device to a network comprising a plurality of electronic devices, the plurality of electronic devices including a first electronic device before the addition of the new electronic device, the first electronic device having access rights(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0021, In some embodiments upon connection of a device 100 to port 102 or an association of a device 100 with a network element, a notification or link up SNMP trap may be sent from network device 104 to for example policy enforcer 107. This notification message may include for example information indicating that a device 100 has connected with port 102, or may include other information.); determining that a first characteristic of the new electronic device is similar to a corresponding first characteristic of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2); and Amitai does not teach granting to the new electronic device access rights, wherein the access rights granted to the new electronic device are based on the access rights of the first electronic device However, Gorilovsky teaches granting to the new electronic device access rights, wherein the access rights granted to the new electronic device are based on the access rights of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 13-21, The second device 1 can reproduce the tactile events from the first device, for example, when one user taps the sensor 4 on his wearable device 1, thus, the proposed device 1 permits nearly instantaneous communication of tactile events and “feelings” between two (or more) such devices, when the devices in question are connected to the network, and do so automatically, without further intervention from the user.);. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amitai with the teaching of Gorilovsky because a user would have been motivated to use the sensor information, taught by Gorilovsky, in order to identify similarities between device in the network taught by Amitai(Gorilovsky, col. 3, lines 2-6)
In regards to claim 39, Amitai teaches a apparatus comprising: a processor(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0009, a system may include a memory that may store criteria for granting access to the network, and a processor that may collect data from the device); memory operably coupled to the processor, wherein the memory has stored instructions that, when executed by a processor(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0009, a system may include a memory that may store criteria for granting access to the network, and a processor that may collect data from the device), cause the processor to perform: detecting addition of a new electronic device to a network comprising a plurality of electronic devices, the plurality of electronic devices including a first electronic device before the addition of the new electronic device, the first electronic device having access rights(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0021, In some embodiments upon connection of a device 100 to port 102 or an association of a device 100 with a network element, a notification or link up SNMP trap may be sent from network device 104 to for example policy enforcer 107. This notification message may include for example information indicating that a device 100 has connected with port 102, or may include other information.);determining that a first characteristic of the new electronic device is similar to a corresponding first characteristic of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2);determining that a second characteristic of the new electronic device is similar to a corresponding second characteristic of the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2); and Amitai does not teach granting to the new electronic device access rights However, Gorilovsky teaches granting to the new electronic device access rights (US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 13-21, The second device 1 can reproduce the tactile events from the first device, for example, when one user taps the sensor 4 on his wearable device 1, thus, the proposed device 1 permits nearly instantaneous communication of tactile events and “feelings” between two (or more) such devices, when the devices in question are connected to the network, and do so automatically, without further intervention from the user.);. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amitai with the teaching of Gorilovsky because a user would have been motivated to use the sensor information, taught by Gorilovsky, in order to identify similarities between device in the network taught by Amitai(Gorilovsky, col. 3, lines 2-6)
In regards to claim 40, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the first characteristic comprises at least one of: a device type; a criticality characteristic, wherein a value assigned to an electronic device for the criticality characteristic corresponds to an extent to which operating the corresponding electronic device has an effect in the physical world; and a sensitivity characteristic, wherein a value assigned to an electronic device for the sensitivity characteristic corresponds to a level of confidentiality of data available through the corresponding electronic device(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0004, calculating a score for the device based on the grades, modifying a score based on an association history of the device with the network, and authorizing access of the device if the score reaches a pre-defined level.).
In regards to claim 41, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the apparatus of claim 39, wherein the second characteristic comprises at least one of: a device type; a criticality characteristic, wherein a value assigned to an electronic device for the criticality characteristic corresponds to an extent to which operating the corresponding electronic device has an effect in the physical world; and a sensitivity characteristic, wherein a value assigned to an electronic device for the sensitivity characteristic corresponds to a level of confidentiality of data available through the corresponding electronic device(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0004, calculating a score for the device based on the grades, modifying a score based on an association history of the device with the network, and authorizing access of the device if the score reaches a pre-defined level.).
In regards to claim 44, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the access rights for the new electronic device are similar to or identical to the access rights for the first electronic device(US 9368006, Gorilovsky, col. 3 lines 2-6 and lines 13-21, Once the user turns on the wearable device 1 using the button 6, device 1 enters a search mode for similar[i.e. note: similar characteristics] such devices, using the wireless network module 5, as well as begins to receive information from the tactile sensor 3, and possibly other sensors connected to the micro controller 2… The second device 1 can reproduce the tactile events from the first device, for example, when one user taps the sensor 4 on his wearable device 1, thus, the proposed device 1 permits nearly instantaneous communication of tactile events and “feelings” between two (or more) such devices, when the devices in question are connected to the network, and do so automatically, without further intervention from the user.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Amitai with the teaching of Gorilovsky because a user would have been motivated to use the sensor information, taught by Gorilovsky, in order to identify similarities between device in the network taught by Amitai(Gorilovsky, col. 3, lines 2-6)
In regards to claim 47, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the network is a local area network(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0022, In some embodiments, policy enforcer 107 may access more than one network or VLAN 113 such as for example LAN 114 or other VLANs).
In regards to claim 48, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the method of claim 28, wherein at least one of the access rights granted to the new electronic device or the access rights of the first electronic device are for access to one or more resources on the network(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0006, In some embodiments, a minimum score may be required for a device to be granted access to a network resource. In some embodiments the minimum score may be varied according to a pre-determined policy.).
In regards to claim 49, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the method of claim 29, wherein at least one of the access rights granted to the new electronic device or the access rights of the first electronic device are for access to one or more resources on the network(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0006, In some embodiments, a minimum score may be required for a device to be granted access to a network resource. In some embodiments the minimum score may be varied according to a pre-determined policy.).
In regards to claim 50, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the apparatus of claim 38, wherein at least one of the access rights granted to the new electronic device or the access rights of the first electronic device are for access to one or more resources on the network(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0006, In some embodiments, a minimum score may be required for a device to be granted access to a network resource. In some embodiments the minimum score may be varied according to a pre-determined policy.).
In regards to claim 51, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the apparatus of claim 39, wherein at least one of the access rights granted to the new electronic device or the access rights of the first electronic device are for access to one or more resources on the network(US 20120005729, Amitai, para. 0006, In some embodiments, a minimum score may be required for a device to be granted access to a network resource. In some embodiments the minimum score may be varied according to a pre-determined policy.).
2.) Claims 35 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120005729, Amitai in view of US 9368006, Gorilovsky and further in view of US 20040059939, de Jong
In regards to claim 35, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the method of claim 28. The combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky do not teach wherein, when the first characteristic is one of a criticality characteristic and a sensitivity characteristic, and at least one of (a) a criticality level of the criticality characteristic of the new electronic device is more critical than a criticality level of the criticality characteristic of the first electronic device and (b) a sensitivity level of the sensitivity characteristic of the new electronic device is more sensitive than a sensitivity level of the sensitivity characteristic of the first electronic device, the granted access rights for the new electronic device are more restrictive than the access rights for the first electronic device However, de Jong teaches wherein, when the first characteristic is one of a criticality characteristic and a sensitivity characteristic, and at least one of (a) a criticality level of the criticality characteristic of the new electronic device is more critical than a criticality level of the criticality characteristic of the first electronic device and (b) a sensitivity level of the sensitivity characteristic of the new electronic device is more sensitive than a sensitivity level of the sensitivity characteristic of the first electronic device, the granted access rights for the new electronic device are more restrictive than the access rights for the first electronic device (US 20040059939, de Jong, para. 0234, Content provisioner 5252 may comprise a content rights database 5215 to store an association between one or more users and a description of the digital content that the one or more users are authorized to access. The description may comprise one or more target IDs associated with a user, and a description of the digital content that may be delivered to one or more target devices corresponding to the target IDs…the required characteristics may be specified with varying levels of particularity. A characteristic specified with a relatively high level of particularity includes, by way of example, a requirement that a specific cryptographic key, a cryptographic algorithm, or both, be used in cryptographically protecting digital content sent to target devices. A characteristic specified with a relatively low level of particularity includes, by way of example, a requirement that a cryptographic key comprising a predetermined number of bits be used to protect digital content sent to target devices.[i.e. note: access rights for devices may be based on device characteristics that have may range from a high level to lower level requirements]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky with the teaching of de Jong because a user would have been motivated to enhance content protection, taught by de Jong, by using a target device identifier to generate a session key used for permitting the transfer of content, taught by the combination of Amitai and Ma, to a target device(de Jong, para. 0102)
In regards to claim 45, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the apparatus of claim 38. The combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky do not teach wherein, when the first characteristic is one of a criticality characteristic and a sensitivity characteristic, and at least one of (a) a criticality level of the criticality characteristic of the new electronic device is more critical than a criticality level of the criticality characteristic of the first electronic device and (b) a sensitivity level of the sensitivity characteristic of the new electronic device is more sensitive than a sensitivity level of the sensitivity characteristic of the first electronic device, the granted access rights for the new electronic device are more restrictive than the access rights for the first electronic device However, de Jong teaches wherein, when the first characteristic is one of a criticality characteristic and a sensitivity characteristic, and at least one of (a) a criticality level of the criticality characteristic of the new electronic device is more critical than a criticality level of the criticality characteristic of the first electronic device and (b) a sensitivity level of the sensitivity characteristic of the new electronic device is more sensitive than a sensitivity level of the sensitivity characteristic of the first electronic device, the granted access rights for the new electronic device are more restrictive than the access rights for the first electronic device (US 20040059939, de Jong, para. 0234, Content provisioner 5252 may comprise a content rights database 5215 to store an association between one or more users and a description of the digital content that the one or more users are authorized to access. The description may comprise one or more target IDs associated with a user, and a description of the digital content that may be delivered to one or more target devices corresponding to the target IDs…the required characteristics may be specified with varying levels of particularity. A characteristic specified with a relatively high level of particularity includes, by way of example, a requirement that a specific cryptographic key, a cryptographic algorithm, or both, be used in cryptographically protecting digital content sent to target devices. A characteristic specified with a relatively low level of particularity includes, by way of example, a requirement that a cryptographic key comprising a predetermined number of bits be used to protect digital content sent to target devices.[i.e. note: access rights for devices may be based on device characteristics that have may range from a high level to lower level requirements]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky with the teaching of de Jong because a user would have been motivated to enhance content protection, taught by de Jong, by using a target device identifier to generate a session key used for permitting the transfer of content, taught by the combination of Amitai and Ma, to a target device(de Jong, para. 0102)
3.) Claims 36 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120005729, Amitai in view of US 9368006, Gorilovsky and further in view of US 20140150079, Le Nerriec
In regards to claim 36, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the method of claim 28. The combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky do not teach wherein a user interface of one electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices is used to interface with at least one other electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices via the network However, Le Nerriec teaches wherein a user interface of one electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices is used to interface with at least one other electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices via the network(US 20140150079, Le Nerriec, para. 0024, an embodiment includes a system comprising a first device and a second device. The first device provides a user interface, and the second device includes a data output component. The first device may be configured to receive information from a user through the user interface, and to communicate the information to the network service.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky with the teaching of Le Nerriec because a user would have been motivated to use a user interface, taught by Le Nerriec, to communicate with a network service provider, taught by the combination of Amitai and Ma, in order to provide events and functionality on behalf of a retrieval device(Le Nerriec, para. 0016)
In regards to claim 46, the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky teach the apparatus of claim 38. The combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky do not teach wherein a user interface of one electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices is used to interface with at least one other electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices via the network However, Le Nerriec teaches wherein a user interface of one electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices is used to interface with at least one other electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices via the network (US 20140150079, Le Nerriec, para. 0024, an embodiment includes a system comprising a first device and a second device. The first device provides a user interface, and the second device includes a data output component. The first device may be configured to receive information from a user through the user interface, and to communicate the information to the network service.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Amitai and Gorilovsky with the teaching of Le Nerriec because a user would have been motivated to use a user interface, taught by Le Nerriec, to communicate with a network service provider, taught by the combination of Amitai and Ma, in order to provide events and functionality on behalf of a retrieval device(Le Nerriec, para. 0016)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7469. The examiner can normally be reached on 571 270 7469 from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Taghi Arani, can be reached on 571 272 3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/GREGORY A LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2438
/TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights