DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18, 23 and 25 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0248709 A1 to Chmaytelli et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6.496.979 B1 issued to Chen et al. and further in view of W.O. No. 03081399 A1 to Koyama et al.
As to claim 1, Chmaytelli teaches a method for detecting uninstallation of applications on mobile devices, the method comprising:
detecting a message from an operating system of a mobile device (Wireless Telephone 100/NOTE: the wireless Telephone 100 includes an operating system that manages or controls all of its operations), the message to include an indication that an application (Targeted Application Program 109) is to be uninstalled from the mobile device (“…Another aspect of the invention involves a recall process initiated by the wireless telephone. In this embodiment, the wireless telephone is programmed to periodically send a message over the wireless network to the recall command source. The recall command source, when contacted by the wireless telephone, sends a recall command to the wireless telephone for any applications that need to be uninstalled. Alternatively, the recall command instructs the wireless telephone to contact another component of the wireless network to obtain the information necessary to uninstall the targeted application program….Accordingly, one embodiment of the invention involves different methods for uninstalling one or more targeted application programs resident upon a wireless telephone. A recall command source remotely issues a recall command in response to which the wireless telephone automatically uninstalls the targeted application program. Alternatively, the wireless telephone periodically sends messages to the recall command source for any recall commands, in response to which the wireless telephone automatically uninstalls the targeted application program… In an alternative embodiment, discussed below, the wireless telephone 100 is programmed to periodically poll a recall command source 222 (discussed in connection with FIG. 2) for any instructions to recall a targeted application program 109. In this embodiment, a recall polling program 111 is downloaded onto the storage 106 of the wireless telephone 100 at the time the wireless telephone 100 is manufactured. The recall polling program 111 is software that is self-executing at different intervals. The recall polling program 111 may automatically execute every time the wireless telephone 100 is turned on by a user, and/or at periodic time intervals while the wireless telephone 100 is being operated by a user, and/or at times pre-determined by the program (such as pre-determined dates or times of day)…” paragraphs 0015/0016/00332/0058/0068); and
transmitting an uninstallation notification to a remote data collector (Recall Command Source 222) when the application is to be uninstalled, the uninstallation notification to include an identifier of at least one of the mobile device or a user of the mobile device (“…In step 502, the recall command source 222 determines whether criteria are met for a recall of one or more targeted application programs 109. The recall command source 222 may commence a recall under a number of circumstances, such as notification from any part of the network 200 that wireless telephones 100 in the network 200 are not operating correctly and/or are crashing when a user operates the targeted application program 109; developers of the targeted application program 109 contacting any part of the network 200 to notify it of an error in the targeted application program 109; users of the wireless telephone contacting any part of the network 200 with complaints about the targeted application program 109; any part of the network 200 receiving statistical feedback of problems with the interaction between the targeted application program 109 and other application programs 108 on the wireless telephone; discovering a software virus in the targeted application program 109; and/or discovering that the user's operation of the targeted application program 109 increases the amount of radio frequency emitted from the wireless telephone 100 such that operation of the targeted application program 109 poses a safety risk…” paragraphs 0058/0066-0068).
Chmaytelli is silent with reference to causing display of a prompt to request an indication of whether or not an install detector is to be uninstalled when the application is to be uninstalled and
causing a display of a second prompt to request a confirmation of whether or not the application is to be uninstalled from the mobile device, wherein the causing of the display of the second prompt is triggered by transmitting the uninstallation notification to the remote data collector.
Chen teaches causing display of a prompt (Application Manager Module 12) to request an indication of whether or not an install detector is to be uninstalled when the application is to be uninstalled a prompt to request an indication of whether or not the means for detecting is to be uninstalled when the application is to be uninstalled (“…At step 164 in FIG. 8, the application manager module 12 displays a user interface such as illustrated in FIG. 9 at 163. The user interface 163 includes a list 165 of available application programs stored as application setup package files in the store 8 with suitable identifiers 167 that can be selected by the user to indicate to add or remove each application from the mobile device 3. In the embodiment illustrated, the user can install or uninstall the application by checking or unchecking the associated identifier 167 for each application…Step 166 represents transfer of the selected setup package files and includes removing or uninstalling applications from the mobile device 3. Preferably, application programs are uninstalled from the mobile device 3 prior to installing or transferring newly selected application programs…” Col. 14 Ln. 39-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli with the teaching of Chen because the teaching of Chen would improve the system of Chmaytelli by providing a technique of un-installing application from a local device to make memory available for other applications.
Koyama teaches causing a display of a second prompt to request a confirmation of whether or not the application is to be uninstalled from the mobile device (displays a list of currently rented software on the screen), wherein the causing of the display of the second prompt is triggered by transmitting the uninstallation notification to the remote data collector (Distribution Center 1) (“…In the figure, the user's terminal device 2 first connects to the network 3 and accesses the software return site of the distribution center 1 via the network 3. Then, at this return site, a login process is performed as step S31, and the member number and password input by the user are referred to the member database 11…As a result, if the member is authenticated, the distribution center 1 is notified of data indicating the currently rented software based on the result of referring to the rental database 12, and based on this, the step S 3 2 The user terminal device 2 displays a list of currently rented software on the screen…On this screen, the user selects and inputs one or more software to be returned (uninstalled) (step S33), and finally selects and inputs "OK" for execution confirmation (step S34, Ο). Κ), uninstall as step S 3 5 Is installed from the distribution center 1 to the user's terminal device 2 and executed… When the software to be returned is uninstalled by this uninstallation program and the distribution center 1 is notified that the software has been successfully uninstalled, the distribution center 1 receives this notification and updates the rental database 12. The rental fee is fixed…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli and Chen with the teaching of Koyama because the teaching of Koyama would improve the system of Chmaytelli and Chen by providing a technique of prompting a user to deciding whether to uninstall application.
As to claim 4, Chmaytelli teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: instructing the operating system to remove the uninstall detector from the mobile device (Step 604 paragraphs 0068-0077).
As to claims 9 and 17, see the rejection of claim 1, expect for tangible machine-readable storage medium.
Chmaytelli teaches tangible machine-readable storage medium (Storage 106).
As to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0248709 A1 to Chmaytelli et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6.496.979 B1 issued to Chen et al. and further in view of W.O. No. 03081399 A1 to Koyama et al. as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0204125 A1 to Hardy.
As to claim 2, Chmaytelli as modified by Chen and Koyama teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to wherein the application is configured to gather status information of the uninstall detector to ensure that the uninstall detector is installed.
Hardy teaches wherein the application is configured to gather status information (gathered application usage information and preset user preferences) of the uninstall detector (Application Monitor 282) to ensure that the means for detecting is installed to ensure that the uninstall detector is installed (“…Referring to FIG. 3, a flow chart illustrating the general operation of the application manager 280 is illustrated generally by numeral 300. In step 302, the application monitor 282 tracks usage of applications as well as features within those applications. Thus, the application monitor 282 maintains data relating to the dates and/or times that application components were last accessed by the user as well as the frequency with which they have been accessed. In the present embodiment, the application monitor 282 monitors the components of all applications on the mobile device 102…Once the trigger is generated, the operation continues at step 306. In step 306, the component remover 286 removes applications and/or components in accordance with the gathered application usage information and preset user preferences. That is, the user can assign different priority to different criteria. For example, the user can determine whether frequency of use or last use date of a component should be weighted more heavily. If the user does not define specific criteria, default criteria are used…In the present embodiment, the component remover 286 automatically determines which of components to delete and presents the user with a dialog or other input request mechanism for confirmation. The information displayed to the user is typically sufficient to identify the component, but may also include information such as a brief description of the component as well as the last time the component was used and how often the component was accessed…If the user chooses to delete the component, the component remover automatically deletes it from the device 102. If the user chooses not to delete the component, the component that next most closely meets the criteria is suggested for deletion. This process continues iteratively until a component has been deleted….” paragraphs 0033-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama the teaching of Hardy because the teaching of Hardy would improve the system of Chmaytelli and C Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama by providing a technique of un-installing application rarely used or accessed to allow for optimal computing resource usage.
As to claim 3, Chmaytelli teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the application is configured to transmit the status information to the remote data collector (Recall Command Source 222).
As to claims 10 and 18, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
As to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 5 and 13 and are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0248709 A1 to Chmaytelli et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6.496.979 B1 issued to Chen et al. and further in view of W.O. No. 03081399 A1 to Koyama et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0292735 A1 to Saharabudhe.
As to claim 5, Chmaytelli as modified by Chen and Koyama teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to determining if the application has been uninstalled during startup of the mobile device.
Saharabudhe teaches determining if the application has been uninstalled during startup of the mobile device (“…As also discussed above, items may be placed in a startup items directory 404C. These items are automatically executed by the operating system 118 at startup time. For instance, a shortcut 408 may be placed in the startup items directory 404C corresponding to a trialware program. In order to prevent the program from executing, one of the decluttering modules 204A-204D will move the shortcut 408 from the startup items directory 404C to the decluttering program backup directory 404B. The next time the computer 100 is restarted, the program referenced by the shortcut 408 will not be executed. As with the icon 406, the shortcut 408 is not uninstalled, deleted, or otherwise modified. As a result, the decluttering engine 202 can easily undo the decluttering process by moving the shortcut 408 from the backup directory 404B to the startup items directory 404C. In this regard, each of the decluttering modules 204A-204D may expose an application programming interface ("API") that returns a list of steps taken during the decluttering process. An API may also be provided which, when called, will cause the decluttering module 204A-204D to revert a list of previously performed steps…” paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama with the teaching of Saharabudhe because the teaching of Saharabudhe would improve the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama by providing a technique of decluttering pre-installed software component from memory.
As to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0248709 A1 to Chmaytelli et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6.496.979 B1 issued to Chen et al. and further in view of W.O. No. 03081399 A1 to Koyama et al. applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 8,373,538 B1 issued to Hildner et al.
As to claim 6, Chmaytelli as modified by Chen and Koyama teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to wherein the application is an on-device meter application.
Hildner teaches wherein the application is an on-device meter application (“…Install/uninstall module…” Col. 17 Ln. 18-20, “…Delete Module Command…” Col. 43 Ln. 50-67, Col. 44 Ln. 1-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama with the teaching of Hildner because the teaching of Hildner would improve the system of Chmaytelli and H Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama by providing a technique for selectively removing or un-installing varying installed applications.
As to claim 7, Chmaytelli as modified by Chen and Koyama teaches the method of claim 6, however it is silent with reference to further comprising: detecting uninstallation of the on-device meter application.
Hildner teaches detecting uninstallation of the on-device meter application (“…Install/uninstall module…” Col. 17 Ln. 18-20, “…Delete Module Command…” Col. 43 Ln. 50-67, Col. 44 Ln. 1-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama with the teaching of Hildner because the teaching of Hildner would improve the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama by providing a technique for selectively removing or un-installing varying installed applications.
As to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0248709 A1 to Chmaytelli et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6.496.979 B1 issued to Chen et al. and further in view of W.O. No. 03081399 A1 to Koyama et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0145920 A1 to Mahaffey.
As to claim 8, Chmaytelli as modified by Chen and Koyama teaches the method of claim 7, however it is silent with reference to further comprising: monitoring the on-device meter application.
Mahaffey teaches monitoring the on-device meter application (“…The monitoring program at the client transmits to the server behavioral data based on the monitoring of the one or more application programs at the client. In a specific embodiment, the behavioral data is inputted to the determination engine as individual behavioral data. That is, the input of the behavioral data is non-aggregated behavioral data, i.e., is from a single client or single application program on the client…” paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama with the teaching of Mahaffey because the teaching of Mahaffey would improve the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama by allowing a focused application monitoring such that information could be gathered promptly and optimally.
As to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 23 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0248709 A1 to Chmaytelli et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6.496.979 B1 issued to Chen et al. and further in view of W.O. No. 03081399 A1 to Koyama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0258301 A1 to McCormick et al.
As to claim 23, , Chmaytelli as modified by Chen and Koyama teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to wherein causing the display of the second prompt to request the confirmation of whether or not the application is to be uninstalled from the mobile device comprises: triggering a browser of the mobile device to display the second prompt.
McCormick teaches wherein causing the display (displays) of the second prompt to request the confirmation of whether or not the application (User Selectable Option 1004) is to be uninstalled from the mobile device comprises: triggering a browser (browser) of the mobile device to display the second prompt (“…Based on this information, the web-based application store application 302 may display (at step 910), in the Internet browser, a list of at least some of the applications currently installed on the device 201 together with one or more user selectable option to delete applications installed on the device 201…The web-based device management application also displays, in the Internet browser, a user selectable option 1004 to delete the applications which are currently installed to the device. In response to receiving instructs to delete the application from the device, the web-based device management application sends a command from the host computer to the device to delete the application…” paragraph 0173).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama with the teaching of McCormick because the teaching of McCormick would improve the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama by providing a mechanism for prompting a user to select applications for removal.
Claim 25 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0248709 A1 to Chmaytelli et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6.496.979 B1 issued to Chen et al. and further in view of W.O. No. 03081399 A1 to Koyama et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,981,252 B1 issued to Sadowsky et al.
As to claim 25, Chmaytelli as modified by Chen and Koyama teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to wherein the second prompt comprises an exit questionnaire requesting user information on why the application is being uninstalled.
Sadowsky teaches wherein the second prompt comprises an exit questionnaire requesting user information on why the application is being uninstalled (“…FIG. 2 illustrates a first preferred embodiment of the present invention. A pre-packaged uninstall program (220) is loaded onto the model computer during the installation of the software application (130). This pre-packaged uninstall program (220) is designed to identify the exact version and installation process of the software application (130). To accomplish this identification, the uninstall program (220) requires a user to interface with the model computer and input the necessary information. For example, the uninstall program (220) will interface with a user via multiple pop-up boxes that ask specific questions. Typical questions may relate to the version of the software that was installed or whether the installation was fully or partially installed. A user is normally required to answer the questions in the pop-up boxes by pressing either a yes/no button or one of a list of answer buttons on each pop-up box. From the information inputted by the user, the pre-packaged uninstall program (220) selects the operating steps required to remove the software application from the computer. The operating steps are selected from a list of steps in the pre-packaged uninstall program (220) corresponding to the different possible versions and/or installation options of the software application which have been selected by the user. Thereafter, the pre-packaged uninstall program (220) uninstalls the software application from the computer…” Col. 4 Ln. 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama with the teaching of Sadowsky because the teaching of Sadowsky would improve the system of Chmaytelli, Chen and Koyama by providing a multiple pop-up boxes that allow users to provide answers to specific questions about application uninstallation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues in substance that although the Koyama prior art discloses a display of a list of rented software to be uninstalled the uninstallation is not triggered by an uninstallation notification or alert.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Koyama prior art discloses the following;
“…Next, return processing of the rented software will be described.
The user must return the rented software within the contract period. Unless returned, the rental fee will be charged assuming that the software is rented even if it is not used. This return processing is performed by connecting the terminal device 2 on which the rented software is installed to the return site of the distribution center 1 via the network 3. FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing a process performed by the user terminal device 2 in the return process.
In the figure, the user's terminal device 2 first connects to the network 3 and accesses the software return site of the distribution center 1 via the network 3. Then, at this return site, a login process is performed as step S31, and the member number and password input by the user are referred to the member database 11.
As a result, if the member is authenticated, the distribution center 1 is notified of data indicating the currently rented software based on the result of referring to the rental database 12, and based on this, the step S32 The user terminal device 2 displays a list of currently rented software on the screen.
On this screen, the user selects and inputs one or more software to be returned (uninstalled) (step S33), and finally selects and inputs "OK" for execution confirmation (step S34, Ο). Κ), uninstall as step S 3 5 Is installed from the distribution center 1 to the user's terminal device 2 and executed…”
The “return processing” is functionally equivalent to uninstall processing. The user's terminal device connects through a network to accesses the software return site of the distribution center. At Step 31 a login process is performed including a member number and password input by the user. At Step S32 the member is authenticated. As a result of the authentication, the distribution center is notified of data indicating the currently rented software based on the result of referring to the rental database, and based on this, the step S32 the user terminal device displays a list of currently rented software on the screen for the rented software uninstallation. In essence, the authentication of the user’s terminal device triggers a notification generates
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 CHARLES E ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-3757. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fir. 9-6pm.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES E ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights