Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed on , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s)
Claim 17-21 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over U.S. Publication No. 20180189372 hereinafter Joiner in view of U.S. Publication No. 20100306827 hereinafter Esteve, and further in view of U.S. Publication No 20020152105 hereinafter Dan, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10438164 hereinafter Xiong have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amended claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 22-26, 36 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claim 17-21 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over U.S. Publication No. 20180189372 hereinafter Joiner in view of U.S. Publication No. 20100306827 hereinafter Esteve, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20180284819 hereinafter McDaniel.
As per claim 17, Joiner discloses:
An event information processing method (para 0003 "Systems and
methods are discussed herein to provide an improved synchronization operation
for electronic calendaring services, with reduced wait times to provide relevant
event data and reduced lock-ups for the devices being synchronized."),
applied to a first electronic device (para 0018 "For example, a user may
check a personal calendar while working on a desktop computer (a first user
device 110) while in the office, and check the same personal calendar while
traveling via a mobile device (a second user device 110). In some aspects, the
master repository 140 is hosted by a central server (e.g., a cloud calendaring
service, an enterprise service) or a given user device 110 is designated as
having its local repository 130 act as the master repository 140 (e.g., a family
personal computer acting as the master repository 140 for several smart phone
user devices 110)."),
wherein the event information processing method comprises:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a first message sent by a second
electronic device, wherein the first message carries a trust level (para 0026
"Method 200 begins at OPERATION 210, where a sync request for a calendar is
received from a user device 110 by the master repository 140. The sync request
includes credentials for the user(s) for whom the events are requested, and
specifies a number of event items to receive at a given time (e.g., return up ton of
the available event items). " Para 0027 "At DECISION 220, it is determined
whether the request includes a valid sync token 150.")
sending, by the first electronic device, a first event to the second electronic
device (para 0032 "Proceeding to OPERATION 260, the response to the sync
request and the sync token 150 are transmitted by the master repository 140 to
the user device 110. Method 200 may conclude after OPERATION 260 or
continue by returning OPERATION 210 in response to receiving a continuation
sync request from the user device 110 that includes the sync token 150 and
request the events that were not included in the prior responses.")
Joiner does not disclose:
wherein the first message carries a trust level of the second electronic
device, determining whether the trust level of the second electronic device meets
a preset condition; and
when the trust level of the second electronic device meets the preset
condition, sending, by the first electronic device, a first event to the second
electronic device
receiving, by the first electronic device, a second event sent by the second
electronic device;
determining whether the first electronic device has a third event
approximate to the second event;
combining, by the first electronic device, the third event and the second
event when the third event is approximate to the second event, to generate a
fourth event, wherein the fourth event comprises information in the second and the third event, and
storing, by the first electronic device, the fourth event, and deleting the
third event and the second event
Esteve discloses:
wherein the first message carries a trust level of the second electronic
device, determining whether the trust level of the second electronic device meets
a preset condition and when the trust level of the second electronic device meets
the preset condition, sending, by the first electronic device, a first event to the
second electronic device (para 0030 " For example, based in part on the trust
level of the requesting user and/or device, the access control component 104 can
operate to enable the synchronization of contact and calendar data, while not
allowing the particular user device/system/application to use e-mail services,
including e- mail synchronization services." para 0037 "As shown in FIGS. 3A-
3B, at 300, a request for synchronization services is received from a client
device. For example, a serving computer used in controlling the synchronization
operations, can receive a request for synchronization services from a
smartphone user who has activated a synchronization mode to request
synchronization services or other services from an enterprise serving system that
includes user e-mail, contacts, and calendar appointments." Para 0038 "In one
embodiment, the user's identity or access credentials, such as a username and a
password for example, are transmitted as part of the request." Para 0039
"According to one embodiment, a serving computer or associated application can
utilize device information received from the client device in making access control
determinations. For example, many newer devices can automatically provide
certain device information as part of a synchronization request, such as Model,
device identification (ID), serial number, origin, operating system and version,
etc." Para 0041 "If the device ID of the requesting device is not included in the
user's blocked device list, the flow proceeds to 306 where the access control
component reads a list of allowed device IDs associated with the requesting user
from a dedicated or other computer storage medium. Each allowed list can
include any number of devices/systems. For example, an allowed list may
include a number of devices that have been deemed trustworthy by complying
with or conforming to certain enterprise policies and security procedures." Para
0042 " If the device ID of the requesting device is included in the user's allowed
device list, the flow proceeds to 308 and the requesting device is allowed to
access and use the synchronization and/or other services depending in part on a
particular implementation and the flow proceeds to 310." Para 0055 "For
example, the device model and/or other device or user information can be used
to ascertain a level of security or trust to attribute to the requesting device or user
to determine whether to allow or block the particular device.")
Therefore, 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 method of
improved synchronization operation for electronic calendaring services of Joiner
to include wherein the first message carries a trust level of the second electronic
device, determining whether the trust level of the second electronic device meets
a preset condition and when the trust level of the second electronic device meets
the preset condition, sending, by the first electronic device, a first event to the
second electronic device, as taught by Esteve.
The motivation would have been to control access to synchronization
services based on trust level of devices.
Joiner in view of Esteve does not disclose:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a second event sent by the second
electronic device;
determining whether the first electronic device has a third event
approximate to the second event;
combining, by the first electronic device, the third event and the second
event when the third event is approximate to the second event, to generate a
fourth event and
storing, by the first electronic device, the fourth event, and deleting the
third event and the second event
McDaniel discloses:
receiving, by the first electronic device, a second event sent by the second
electronic device (para 0006 “In various embodiments, importing the calendar includes receiving, by the calendar activity engine of the controller from a third-part data source, data representative of the calendar, and storing, by the calendar activity engine, the data representative of the calendar in a calendar activity database of a dynamic user data store.” para 0037 “As discussed herein, example embodiments receive input data including aspects such as intelligence about a building and its equipment, a weekly schedule of events, and a seven-day weather forecast. Various aspects of the data are static and various are dynamic. For instance, the schedule may be updated at will by users, thereby being dynamic.”);
determining whether the first electronic device has a third event
approximate to the second event and combining, by the first electronic device, the third event and the second event when the third event is approximate to the second event, to generate a fourth event (para 0008 “ In various embodiments, the method also includes calculating, by the calendar activity engine, an event proximity window including a determined duration of time wherein events spaced apart by no less than the event proximity window are mergeable as a single event, merging, by the calendar activity engine, at least two calendar events of the plurality of calendar events, in response to the at least two calendar events occupying time slots lying within the event proximity window, and identifying, by an equipment intelligence engine of the controller, at least one effector of a plurality of effectors of the environmental control management system, wherein the at least one effector is associated with a site of the calendar event.” Para 0114 “ The method 1000 may further include, merging, by the controller 24 calendar events which, following the assignment of a ramp time, occupy times slots lying within an event proximity window (step 1005). An event proximity window may comprise a determined duration of time wherein events spaced apart by no less than the event proximity window may be merged as a single event.”) and
storing, by the first electronic device, the fourth event, and deleting the
third event and the second event (Para 0114 “ The method 1000 may further include, merging, by the controller 24 calendar events which, following the assignment of a ramp time, occupy times slots lying within an event proximity window (step 1005). An event proximity window may comprise a determined duration of time wherein events spaced apart by no less than the event proximity window may be merged as a single event.”)
Therefore, 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 method of
improved synchronization operation for electronic calendaring services of Joiner in view of Esteve to include combining, by the first electronic device, the third event and the second event when the third event is approximate to the second event, to generate a fourth event, as taught by McDaniel.
The motivation would have been to determine whether events spaced apart by no less than the event proximity window are mergeable.
As per claim 18, Joiner in view of Esteve and McDaniel discloses:
The method according to claim 17, wherein the determining whether the
trust level of the second electronic device meets the preset condition, and when
the trust level of the second electronic device meets the preset condition,
sending, by the first electronic device, the first event to the second electronic
device (Esteve para 0042 " If the device ID of the requesting device is included
in the user's allowed device list, the flow proceeds to 308 and the requesting
device is allowed to access and use the synchronization and/or other services
depending in part on a particular implementation and the flow proceeds to 310."
The motivation would have been to control access to synchronization services
based on trust level of devices) comprises:
determining whether the trust level of the second electronic device is lower
than an allowed device trust level corresponding to the first event; and when the
trust level of the second electronic device is not lower than the allowed device
trust level corresponding to the first event, sending, by the first electronic device,
the first event to the second electronic device (Esteve para 0043 "At 310, the
access control component reads a list of access-based rules associated with the
computing environment. For example, the access control component can read
any implemented rules from an access list of enterprise users stored in an
enterprise database. If the list is empty, the flow proceeds to 312, discussed
further below." Para 0044 "As described above, the amount of identification
information that can be provided by each requesting device or client may be
limited or not, depending in part on the functionality of a particular device and/or
synchronization component. If certain device information was not transmitted as
part of the request and a safe state upgrade time is greater than a predetermined
amount of migration time (e.g., within a given amount of time (seven days, two
weeks, etc.)), the flow proceeds to 314 and the requested device is allowed to
access the synchronization services or some portion thereof for the reason of
upgrade. For example, the safe state upgrade time can be used as a migration
time period when migrating from a previous server version to a new server or
upgraded version of the server." Also see paragraph 0045-0055 "The motivation
would have been to control access to synchronization services based on trust
level of devices.").
As per claim 19, Joiner in view of Esteve and McDaniel discloses:
The method according to claim 18, wherein the method further comprises:
when the trust level of the second electronic device is lower than the allowed
device trust level corresponding to the first event, determining whether the
second electronic device is in a device trustlist corresponding to the first event;
and when the second electronic device is in the device trustlist, sending, by the
first electronic device, the first event to the second electronic device (Esteve
para 0045-0055 "The motivation would have been to control access to
synchronization services based on trust level of devices.").
As per claim 20, Joiner in view of Esteve and McDaniel discloses:
The method according to claim 19, wherein the allowed device trust level
and the device trustlist are set by the first electronic device (Esteve para 0045-
"The motivation would have been to control access to synchronization services
based on trust level of devices.").
As per claim 21, Joiner in view of Esteve and McDaniel discloses:
The method according to claim 17, wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the first electronic device, the fourth event to the second electronic
device (Joiner para 0032, syncing events with other devices).
As per claim 28, Joiner in view of Esteve and McDaniel discloses:
The method according to claim 17, wherein the sending, by the first
electronic device, the first event to the second electronic device comprises:
sending, by the first electronic device, index information of the first event to the
second electronic device (Joiner para 0034).
As per claim 29, Joiner in view of Esteve and McDaniel discloses:
The method according to claim 28, wherein the method further comprises:
when the first electronic device receives a request message sent by the second
electronic device, sending, by the first electronic device, all information in the first
event to the second electronic device (Joiner para 0029-0031).
As per claim 30, the implementation of the method of claim 17 will execute
the electronic device of claim 20. The claim is analyzed with respect to
claim 17.
As per claim 31, the implementation of the method of claim 17 will execute
the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 31. The claim
is analyzed with respect to claim 17.
As per claim 32, the claim is analyzed with respect to claim 18.
As per claim 33, the claim is analyzed with respect to claim 18.
As per claim 34, the claim is analyzed with respect to claim 20.
As per claim 35, the claim is analyzed with respect to claim 21.
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 GARY S GRACIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GARY S GRACIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499