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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Amended claims 29-41, 43-46, and 48 are pending and remain for further examination.
The New Grounds of Rejection
Applicants’ amendments and arguments with respect to the claims 29-41, 43-46, and 48 filed on June 29, 2026, have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new reference. Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application is currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29-41, 43-46, and 48 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Lee et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0151315 A1) in view of Huang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0025658 A1).
As to claim 29, Lee et al teach an application login method (see abstract, figures 1-2, pars. 0024 & 0029), comprising: establishing, by a first electronic device, a communication connection with a second electronic device having a cellular communication function available (figure 1, par. 0025 lines 1-162, a first electronic device (a TV having an input function) establish a communication channel with a second electronic device (a smartphone inherently having a cellular communication function); displaying, by the first electronic device after an application is started, a login interface comprising a second control (figure 1, par. 0025 lines 14-25, figure 7 (701), pars. 0088-0090, a first electronic device displaying a login interface including login window having login key), wherein the second control is used to provide a first login manner (figure 2, pars. 0031, 0035-0036, 0048, the first electronic device logs in to the application by the second electronic device by using a touch function); receiving, by the first electronic device, a first user operation on the second control; and logging, by the first electronic device in response to the first user operation, in to the application in the first login manner (figure 2, pars. 0030-0037, figure 7, pars. 0089-0092, the first electronic device logs in to the application by the second electronic device by using a user inputs/operations).
However, Lee et al do not teach that displaying, by the first electronic device, login information is obtained from an authentication server via the cellular communication function of the second electronic device, thereby logging in to the application based on the login information.
Huang teaches an application login method (see abstract, figure 3, pars. 0075-0077), comprising: displaying, by the first electronic device, login information is obtained from an authentication server via the cellular communication function of the second electronic device, thereby logging in to the application based on the login information (figures 3-4, pars. 0086-0087 & 0096-0097, figures 9-10, pars. 0148-0156, a client terminal receiving authorization information and access information from an authentication server and logging into an application based on the received information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Huang as stated above with the application login method of Lee et al for obtaining login information from the authentication server because it would have facilitated execution environments proximate to clients and servers that providing quick access to the application server, also decreased response time and potential delay, and improved overall efficiency.
As to claim 30, Lee et al teach that the first electronic device is an electronic device without a cellular communication function (figure 1, par. 0025 lines 51-54, the first electronic device is a TV including an input function).
As to claim 31, Lee et al teach that when the first electronic device obtains authorization from the second electronic device, identification information of the second electronic device is further displayed on the login interface (figures 1-2, pars. 0025 & 0030, figure 7, par. 0091, ID of the second electronic device displayed on the first electronic device based on authentication information).
As to claim 32, Lee et al teach that obtaining, by the first electronic device, authorization from the second electronic device, and logging in to the application in the first login manner in response to the first operation (figures 1-2, pars. 0025 & 0042, the first electronic device receiving authentication information from the second electronic device and logging into the application).
As to claim 33, Lee et al teach that displaying, by the first electronic device, a device selection interface including at least one available host, and each of the at least one available host is an electronic device that can cooperate with the first electronic device to log in to the application in the first login manner (figure 7, pars. 0089-0092, displaying available second electronic devices); sending, by the first electronic device, an authorization request to the second electronic device in response to an operation of selecting the second electronic device from the at least one available host, wherein the authorization request requests the second electronic device to cooperate with the first electronic device to log in to the application in the first login manner; receiving, by the first electronic device, an authorization notification from the second electronic device, wherein the authorization notification indicates that the second electronic device already accepts the authorization request (figures 1-2, pars. 0025, 0030, 0042, the first electronic device receiving authentication information from the second electronic device and logging into the application).
As to claim 34, Lee et al teach that updating, by the first electronic device, the login interface after the authorization notification is received, wherein an updated login interface displays identification information of the second electronic device; and
logging, by the first electronic device, into the application in the first login manner in response to an operation on the second control on the updated login interface (figures 1-2, pars. 0030 & 0038-0042, the first electronic device periodically receiving authentication information from the second electronic device).
As to claim 35, Lee et al teach that broadcasting, by the first electronic device, a device information obtaining request to a router in a local area network in which the first electronic device is located (figure 5, par. 0075 lines 19-24, figure 9, pars. 0109-0111, using a hub to broadcast input information request); receiving, by the first electronic device, device information sent by the at least one available host in the local area network; and displaying, by the first electronic device, the device selection interface based on the device information sent by the at least one available host (figure 7, pars. 0089-0092, ID of the second electronic device display on the first electronic device).
As to claim 36, Lee et al teach that sending, by the first electronic device, a device information obtaining request to a cloud server corresponding to a device account logged in to by the first electronic device; receiving, by the first electronic device, device information that is of the at least one available host and that is sent by the cloud server (pars. 0036-0037 & 0041-0042, figure 3, par. 0055 $ 0113, receiving authorization from the specific server including available second electronic devices); and displaying, by the first electronic device, the device selection interface based on the device information sent by the at least one available host (figure 7, pars. 0089-0092, ID of the second electronic device display on the first electronic device).
As to claim 37, Lee et al teach that displaying, by the first electronic device, an application home interface including a first control, wherein the first control is used to control the first electronic device to display the login interface; and displaying, by the first electronic device, the login interface in response to an operation performed by the user on the first control (figure 7, pars. 0095-0098, figure 8, pars. 0100-0102, displaying application home interface including control key).
As to claim 38, Huang teaches that sending, by the first electronic device, a first login request to an authentication server via the second electronic device, wherein the first login request requests to obtain login information; receiving, by the first electronic device, the login information from the authentication server via the second electronic device; logging, by the first electronic device, in to the application based on the login information (figures 3-4, pars. 0086-0087 & 0096-0097, figures 9-10, pars. 0148-0156, a client terminal receiving authorization information and access information from an authentication server and logging into an application based on the received information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Huang as stated above with the application login method of Lee et al for obtaining login information from the authentication server because it would have facilitated execution environments proximate to clients and servers that providing quick access to the application server, also decreased response time and potential delay, and improved overall efficiency.
As to claim 39, Lee et al teach that sending, by the first electronic device, a second login request to an application server corresponding to the application, wherein the second login request comprises the login information and is used by the application server to log in to the application based on the login information; and receiving, by the first electronic device, a login result notification sent by the application server (figure 3, pars. 0055 & 0057, figure 4, pars. 0065 & 0070, logging in to an application based on a history of the input information and receiving a logging result).
As to claim 40, Lee et al teach that the first electronic device and the second electronic device are electronic devices in the same local area network, the first electronic device and the second electronic device communicate with each other by using a router in the local area network (figure 9, pars. 0109-0111, using a local hub to communicates between both electronic devices).
As to claim 41, Lee et al teach that the first electronic device and the second electronic device log in to a same device account, the first electronic device and the second electronic device communicate with each other via a cloud server corresponding to the device account, or via a peer-to-peer connection (pars. 0113-0114, using a cloud server without using devices accounts).
As to claims 43-46, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 29-32 and 38-39 above, since claims 43-46 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the claims 29-32 and 38-39, and claims 43-46 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 29-32 and 38-39.
As to claim 48, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claim 29 above, since claim 48 is merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the claim 29, and claim 48 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claim 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments with respect to the claims 29-41, 43-46, and 48 filed on June 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new references. The examiner has attempted to answer (response) to the remarks (arguments) in the body of the Office Action (see new updated rejection of claims 29-41, 43-46, and 48).
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for replying 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.
Additional Reference
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
a. Kopack, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0179589 A1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights