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
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 12/10/2025.
Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Claims 1,11,12 and 13 are independent claims.
This Office Action is made final.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holbein (US 2011/0289238 A1) in view of Ravi (US 2012/0287231 A1).
As per claim 1, Holbein teaches An information processing apparatus that serves as a host apparatus that achieves synchronization of data with a different information processing apparatus by causing the different information processing apparatus to transmit the data in response to a request made via a synchronization path, communication through which is startable only from a side of the host apparatus, the information processing apparatus comprising: (Holbein [0022] In another aspect of the present disclosure, the synchronization is initiated by the generation, by the wireless device [host apparatus], of a synchronization request. The synchronization request is provided to a wireless transceiver of the wireless device and is communicated as a radio signal. The radio signal is communicated to the paired transceiver. And, a synchronization response [response from different processing apparatus] is generated and returned to the wireless device. The wireless transceiver of the wireless device detects the response, and the synchronization of the databases commences. [0034] According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a more convenient manner is provided by which to provide for synchronization of a database, such as the database 146 with a corresponding, remote database, such as the database 156. [different processing apparatus] [0045] First, and as indicated by the block 234, detection is made of positioning of a wireless device at a support cradle, such as a charging cradle of a charging assembly. Then, and as indicated by block 236, synchronization operations are initiated, such as by the generation of a synchronization request message.)
It is clear from above paragraphs that synchronization is initiated from Block 100 wireless device of Fig 1. This is clearly indicated in Fig 1 (Block 168 (Sync Initiator).
Claims 11 and 12 of Holebein teach initiating the synchronization through wi-fi link (claim 11) or Bluetooth link. According to paragraph 28 these are Blocks 134 (Bluetooth) and 136 (wi-fi links). See the response section for further information.
a processor configured to:
establish a communication path between the different information processing apparatus and the host apparatus, separately from the synchronization path, by transmitting a path establishment request to the different information processing apparatus via the synchronization path; and (Holbein [0036] An indication of the detection made by the detector is provided to the synchronization initiator 168. The synchronization initiator operates, responsive to detection of the charging current by the detector, to initiate commencement of synchronization operations. To initiate the synchronization operations, in the example implementation, the initiator 168 generates a synchronization request message that is provided to a local area network transceiver, here the LAN transceiver 134 or 136. And, the local area network transceiver sends the synchronization request message over a radio air interface for reception by a corresponding transceiver. The corresponding transceiver is, e.g., embodied in at the computer station 122 or, alternately is embodied, indicated at 152, at the cradle 114, and connected to the computer station 122 by way of a tethered connection. A communication connection is established between the respective transceivers. In the example implementation, the remote transceiver returns a synchronization response, which is detected at the appropriate transceiver 134 or 136 pursuant to creation of the communication connection between the transceivers, thereby to permit the synchronization operations to be carried out. [0037] An indication of the synchronization is provided to the synchronization controller 172. The synchronization controller, which controls synchronization operations, permits the synchronization operations to be carried out to synchronize data of the database 146 with the remote database 156. The synchronization controller is provided with information during the synchronization operations such as, for example, information relating to the status of the exchange of synchronization data. The synchronization controller is provided with an indication of completion of the synchronization operations, or otherwise determines such completion. Upon completion of the synchronization operation, the database 146 is placed in correspondence with the remote database 156, and the communication connection between the local area network transceiver is no longer required. [This could be 134 or 136 in Fig 1] The synchronization controller 172 causes the local area network transceiver to be turned-off, here indicated by way of the line 176)
achieve the data synchronization in response to an instruction for the data synchronization in a case where the instruction is provided from the different information processing apparatus via the communication path. (Holbein Fig 2 Block 212 (Synchronize) and Fig 3 Block 246 (Perform Synchronization) and [0044] At the block 212, synchronization is performed to place the databases in complete correspondence with one another. Then, as indicated by the decision block 216, a determination is made as to whether synchronization is completed).
Holbein does not teach communication through the communication path being startable from either side.
However, Ravi teaches communication through the communication path being startable from either side (Ravi [0063] In FIG. 3, a two-way exchange of synchronization commands is shown)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ravi with the system of Holbein to start communication from either side. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Ravi into the system of Holbein for the purpose of sharing media information (Ravi paragraph 06).
As to claims 11-13, they are rejected based on the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holbein (US 2011/0289238 A1) in view of Ravi (US 2012/0287231 A1) in further view of Baron (US 2022/0094656 A1).
As per claim 2, Holbein and Ravi do not teach wherein the communication path is kept established during operation.
However, Baron teaches wherein the communication path is kept established during operation. (Baron [0031] In some embodiments, each client device 102 maintains a persistent bi-directional communication path via network 106 with a respective one of gateways 130. As an example, a first client device 102 in a first geographical region maintains a persistent bi-directional communication path with the first gateway 131 located in the first geographical region. A second client device 102 in a second geographical region maintains a persistent bi-directional communication path with the second gateway 131 located in the second geographical region. When the first gateway 131 receives a message that is directed to the second user in the second geographical location, the first gateway 131 forwards the message automatically to the second gateway 131 located in the second geographical location. Using the persistent bi-directional communication path, the second gateway 131, in response to receiving the message from the first gateway 131, sends the message to the second client device 102 and causes the second client device 102 to present the message to the second user. And [claim 6] replicating data that associates the plurality of users with the plurality of geographical regions across the first and second gateways periodically or continuously)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baron with the system of Holbein and Ravi to communication path is kept established during . One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Baron into the system of Holbein and Ravi for the purpose of managing message exchanges. (Baron paragraph 02)
Claims 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holbein (US 2011/0289238 A1) in view of Ravi (US 2012/0287231 A1) in further view of HowardBaron (US 2021/0056553 A1).
As per claim 3, Holbein and Ravi do not teach wherein the processor is configured to control execution of a job in accordance with a degree of influence on the execution of the job in a case where the data synchronization is achieved in response to the instruction from the different information processing apparatus.
However, Howard teaches wherein the processor is configured to control execution of a job in accordance with a degree of influence on the execution of the job in a case where the data synchronization is achieved in response to the instruction from the different information processing apparatus. (Howard [0061] In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, and if the service provider is a financial network, updating the user's geolocation data with the service provider may update the service provider's fraud prevention rules and travel notifications, such that a user's financial instruments (credit cards, ATM cards, digital wallets, etc.) will be automatically authorized to transact while the user is travelling without requiring the user to manually inform the service provider of their travel plans (as current systems require). [0063] In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, and if the service provider is a delivery service, updating the user's geolocation data with the service provider may cancel or postpone previously-configured delivery orders so that delivery service does not deliver food or packages while the consumer is outside of their home location for an extended period of time. Alternatively, updating the user's geolocation data with the service provider may change the delivery address for previously-configured delivery orders to a different, user-designated address, such as the user's work address, the user's address at the proposed time of delivery, or an associate's address.)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Howard with the system of Holbein and Ravi to control execution of a job in accordance with a degree of influence on the execution of the job . One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Howard into the system of Holbein and Ravi for the purpose of implementing an improved way of automatically identifying an authorized change in a consumer's regular travel, transaction, and/or consumption patterns, and updating service providers to ensure the desired performance of the consumer's services. (Howard paragraph 06)
As per claim 4, Howard teaches wherein the processor is configured to cancel the execution of the job in a case where the data synchronization influences the execution of the job. (Howard [0056] As discussed hereinafter, and in some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, based upon the determined geolocation data (Step 220) and the extracted event data (Step 225), the geolocation data will be modified (e.g., changed, updated, arranged, and/or the like) to comprise or include the extracted event data (Step 222) [0063] In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, and if the service provider is a delivery service, updating the user's geolocation data with the service provider may cancel or postpone previously-configured delivery orders so that delivery service does not deliver food or packages while the consumer is outside of their home location for an extended period of time).
As per claim 6, Howard teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the job with a condition for the execution of the job changed in a case where the data synchronization influences the execution of the job but does not influence the execution of the job if the condition for the execution of the job is changed. (Howard [0063] Alternatively, updating the user's geolocation data with the service provider may change the delivery address for previously-configured delivery orders to a different, user-designated address, such as the user's work address, the user's address at the proposed time of delivery, or an associate's address).
In this case the job continues (is not cancelled) but it goes to a different address.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holbein (US 2011/0289238 A1) in view of Ravi (US 2012/0287231 A1) in further view of HowardBaron (US 2021/0056553 A1) and Howard2 (US 2021/0099540 A1).
As per claim 5, Holbein and Ravi and Howard do not teach wherein the processor is configured to notify an execution requester that the execution of the job has been canceled.
However, Howard2 teaches wherein the processor is configured to notify an execution requester that the execution of the job has been canceled. (Howard2 [0062] In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, at least one notification comprising at least one option associated with the event is generated and communicated, with at least one processor, in response to receipt of the user input (Step 115). The at least one notification may comprise an email, text message, SMS, IMS, on-screen message, phone call, or any suitable form of notifying the user that the input regarding the event occurrence was received. In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the options associated with the event are dynamically determined based on the event. In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects where the user provides input via a graphical user interface (or GUI), the GUI may contain a list of events allowing the user to see the event that is most relevant for the event which has occurred. In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the listed events may include any or all of the following: [0063] reporting lost or damaged card [0064] reporting stolen card [0065] reporting a transaction denial [0066] confirming a transaction [0067] creating a new account associated with the user account [0068] notify the service provider of a change in the user location [0069] updating the user account address [0070] updating the delivery address [0071] postponing delivery [0072] canceling delivery [0073] temporarily disabling content delivery [0074] enabling content delivering [0075] placing a hold on the account)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Howard2 with the system of Holbein and Ravi and Howard to notify an execution requester that the execution of the job has been canceled. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Howard2 into the system of Holbein and Ravi and Howard for the purpose of providing an improved way to quickly, safely, and efficiently communicate to a service provider the occurrence of a security event or a change in the user's status (Howard 2 paragraph 03)
As per claim 7, Holbein and Ravi and Howard do not teach wherein the processor is configured to notify an execution requester that the condition for the execution of the job has been changed.
However, Howard2 teaches wherein the processor is configured to notify an execution requester that the condition for the execution of the job has been changed. (Howard2 [0062] In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, at least one notification comprising at least one option associated with the event is generated and communicated, with at least one processor, in response to receipt of the user input (Step 115). The at least one notification may comprise an email, text message, SMS, IMS, on-screen message, phone call, or any suitable form of notifying the user that the input regarding the event occurrence was received. In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the options associated with the event are dynamically determined based on the event. In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects where the user provides input via a graphical user interface (or GUI), the GUI may contain a list of events allowing the user to see the event that is most relevant for the event which has occurred. In some non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the listed events may include any or all of the following: [0063] reporting lost or damaged card [0064] reporting stolen card [0065] reporting a transaction denial [0066] confirming a transaction [0067] creating a new account associated with the user account [0068] notify the service provider of a change in the user location [0069] updating the user account address [0070] updating the delivery address [0071] postponing delivery [0072] canceling delivery [0073] temporarily disabling content delivery [0074] enabling content delivering [0075] placing a hold on the account)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Howard2 with the system of Holbein and Ravi and Howard to notify an execution requester that the condition for the execution of the job has been changed. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Howard2 into the system of Holbein and Ravi and Howard for the purpose of providing an improved way to quickly, safely, and efficiently communicate to a service provider the occurrence of a security event or a change in the user's status (Howard 2 paragraph 03)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holbein (US 2011/0289238 A1) in view of Ravi (US 2012/0287231 A1) in further view of HowardBaron (US 2021/0056553 A1) and Luo (US 2023/0004429 A1).
As per claim 8, Holbein and Ravi and Howard do not teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the job without any intervention in a case where the data synchronization does not influence the execution of the job.
However, Luo teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the job without any intervention in a case where the data synchronization does not influence the execution of the job. (Luo [0100] Optionally, in an implementation of this embodiment, at least one synchronization request signal sending instruction is pre-inserted into the task segment. For the synchronization request signal sending instruction set in the middle of the task segment, when the processing core executes the synchronization request signal sending instruction, the processing core sends the synchronization request signal and continues to execute the task segment; for the synchronization request signal sending instruction set at the end of the task segment, when the processing core executes the synchronization request signal sending instruction, the processing core sends the synchronization request signal and waits to receive a new task segment [running the task is not affected by the synchronization process]).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Luo with the system of Holbein and Ravi and Howard to execute the job without any intervention. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Luo into the system of Holbein and Ravi and Howard for the purpose of receiving the synchronization signal, determining, by the microprocessor, whether the allocation of the task segment to the processing core is required according to the synchronization signal. (Luo paragraph 12)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holbein (US 2011/0289238 A1) in view of Ravi (US 2012/0287231 A1) in further view of Li (US 2021/0029198 A1).
As per claim 9, Holbein and Ravi do not teach wherein the processor is configured to notify a user that has set a job related to the data that the data synchronization is to be achieved in response to an instruction from the different information processing apparatus.
However, Li teaches wherein the processor is configured to notify a user that has set a job related to the data that the data synchronization is to be achieved in response to an instruction from the different information processing apparatus. (Li [0119] During implementation, after storing the new schedule event in the database in the form of structured data, the control server may further feed back a synchronization result of the new schedule event to the data synchronization service client on the terminal device, to notify the terminal device whether the new schedule event is successfully synchronized).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li with the system of Holbein and Ravi to notify a user that has set a job related to the data that the data synchronization is to be achieved. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Li into the system of Holbein and Ravi for the purpose of implementing data synchronization method and a synchronization service device. (Li paragraph 02)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holbein (US 2011/0289238 A1) in view of Ravi (US 2012/0287231 A1) in further view of Nguyen (US 2021/0067584 A1).
As per claim 10, Holbein and Ravi do not teach wherein the different information processing apparatus is formed on a cloud.
However, Nguyen teaches wherein the different information processing apparatus is formed on a cloud. (Nguyen [0026] After each task is performed, progress is made to block 420. At block 420 a check is made to determine whether to synchronize with the service cloud. If so, then at block 424 the application executing on the MFP sends synchronization data to the service cloud and progress returns to block 416 to continue executing tasks. If not, then progress returns to block 416 to continue executing tasks on the MFP for the service cloud. Synchronization can be coordinated between the MFP and the service cloud based on multiple factors such as what task has been performed, the type of synchronization data, the amount of synchronization data, and the performance level of the service cloud. For example, if the service cloud is under a heavy load, synchronization can be delayed until a period of time when the service cloud is under a lighter load. Similarly, if the task is performed on the MFP to reduce possible network congestion, then synchronization can be performed at a time when network traffic is lower or in a manner designed to minimize the impact to the service cloud).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nguyen with the system of Holbein and Ravi to implement a different information processing apparatus on a cloud. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Nguyen into the system of Holbein and Ravi for the purpose of handling intensive tasks by the cloud (Nguyen paragraph 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued that “In this disclosure, Holbein merely discloses the generation and not the exclusive initiation of the synchronization request via the radio air interface. In contrast, the independent claims recite the "synchronization path, the communication through which is startable only
from the side of the host apparatus.".
The applicant is reminded that this is explicitly taught in Holbein ([0022] In another aspect of the present disclosure, the synchronization is initiated by the generation, by the wireless device [host apparatus], of a synchronization request. The synchronization request is provided to a wireless transceiver of the wireless device and is communicated as a radio signal.
Fig 1 also makes this clear by showing Block 168 (Sync Initiator) only as part of block 100 (wireless device). We do not see anything like this on the other side Block 112 (Computer Station). So the initiation is from one side only.
The applicant has further argued that “Holbein does not disclose the radio air interface or the local area network for the synchronization operation to be separate and different from the subsequent correspondence path between the mobile device 100 and the computer station 100“.
Looking at Fig 1 we see three Transceivers one WAN and two LAN (Block 134 and 136). Claims 11 and 12 of Holebein teach initiating the synchronization through wi-fi link (claim 11) or Bluetooth link. (claim 12) . According to paragraph 28 these are Blocks 134 (Bluetooth) and 136 (wi-fi links). We see in paragraph 37 (Upon completion of the synchronization operation, the database 146 is placed in correspondence with the remote database 156, and the communication connection between the local area network transceiver is no longer required. This could be 134 or 136 in Fig 1. So one can use Block 134 for initiation of synchronization and Block 136 for actual synchronization process. This only works because Holebin has explicitly taught initiation from both Blocks 134 and 136 so the other one can be used for the actual synchronization process. Use of different communication and synchronization channels is something that is well known .
The examiner sees the merits of this invention and suggests moving the essence of the invention (Fig 4 specifically degree of influence) to the independent claim so as to help distinguish it from prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAN KAMRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3401. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor April Blair, can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/MEHRAN KAMRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196