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 action is responsive to RCE filed 3/16/2026 which enters the amendment of 2/17/26.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims on 2/17/26. Claims 1-3,5-10,12-17,19,20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/17/26, with respect to the previous rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
On page 7 of remarks, Applicant argues that McRae is silent regarding authentication information.
In reply, this argument is not persuasive because firstly, the claim and specification are open-ended, and secondly, McRae does teach exchanging password information between the caster and receiver devices (see at least ¶s 3-5,25). Applicant cites ¶s 39 and 46 of McRae but it is unclear what Applicant is referring to since ¶ 39 discusses memory, and there is no ¶ 46 in McRae.
Applicants argument regarding the amended limitation of “… including at least one … API…” is persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made under 103 based on McRae in view of Patel in view of Xia in further view of Strober.
On page 9 of remarks, Applicant argues that Xia does not teach “terminate, at the smart host device, the at least one client session…”.
In reply, this argument is not persuasive because firstly, the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and the claim does not give functional details of how the session is terminated. Xia satisfies the broad limitation since Xia teaches connection termination when outside a proximity threshold. Secondly, Applicant states that Xia is in contrast to “where the host invalidates the client session rather than delegating responsibility to the network resource”. It is noted that this features upon which applicants’ argument relies upon, is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1,6-8,13-15,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McRae (US Publication 20160088328) in view of Patel (US Publication 20200111155) in further view of Xia et al (US Patent 10771458) in further view of Strober (US Publication 20120272148).
In reference to claim 1, McRae teaches a smart host device, comprising: one or more processors configured to:
establish, at the smart host device, a local connection to a client device; (see at least ¶s 15-16, where McRae teaches establishing a local connection between a mobile caster device and a client receiver device)
exchange authentication information with the client device over the local connection; (see at least ¶s 3-5,25, where McRae teaches exchanging password information between the devices)
establish, at the smart host device, at least one client session on behalf of the client device with a network resource; (see at least ¶s 19,28, where McRae teaches the caster device establishes a session with a stream re/source on behalf of the receiver device)
provide, from the smart host device to the client device, a service interface for the at least one client session, the service interface providing access to the network resource via the smart host device; (see at least ¶s 19,29, where McRae teaches the caster provides to the receiver device, a URL service interface for the session to the resource).
McRae fails to explicitly teach using account credentials stored at the smart host device, and using account credentials stored at the smart host device. However, Patel teaches connecting to an online resource using account credentials stored at user device, and accessing the resource using the credentials (see Patel, at least Abstract and ¶ 21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify McRae based on the teachings of Patel for the purpose of establishing a trusted connection between devices so as to communicate with each other in a secure environment.
McRae fails to explicitly teach determine that the local connection between the smart host device and the client device has been terminated; and terminate, at the smart host device, the at least one client session based on the determination that the local connection between the smart host device and the client device has been terminated. However, Xia teaches proximity based connection establishment, and discloses connection termination when outside the proximity threshold and subsequently disconnecting the client session (see Xia, at least Abstract and column 10 lines 15-41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify McRae based on the teachings of Xia for the purpose of enhancing connection security via proximity based access control.
McRae fails to explicitly teach the at least one client session including at least one application programming interface (API) associated with the network resource. However, Strober teaches controlling media sessions over a network, and further teaches utilizing API’s for media commands to the network resource based on the selected network resource that is providing the content (see Strober, at least Abstract and ¶s 28,33,34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify McRae based on the teachings of Strober for the purpose of ensuring the correct control commands are utilized to control content from the content source.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by McRae, see at least ¶ 32 and 2nd half of ¶ 35, which teaches mobile devices and smart phones.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by McRae, see at least ¶ 15 and middle of ¶ 35, which teaches the local connection is Wifi or USB etc.
Claims 8,13-15,20 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1,6,7 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 2,3,9,10,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McRae (US Publication 20160088328) in view of Patel (US Publication 20200111155) in further view of Xia et al (US Patent 10771458) in further view of Hojilla et al (US Publication 20200358764).
In reference to claim 2, McRae fails to explicitly teach wherein exchanging authentication information comprises sending from the smart device a smart host certificate to the client device and receiving at the smart device, a client certificate from the client device.
However, Hojilla teaches establishing peer connection for secure communication between the two peers, and discloses a first device providing a certificate to a second device, and the second device providing a certificate to the first device (see Hojilla, at least Abstract and ¶s 39-40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify McRae based on the teachings of Hojilla for the purpose of establishing a trusted between peers for the peers to communicate in a secure environment.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Hojilla, see at least ¶s 40,55, which teaches verifying the certificates via a certificate authority. Furthermore, “Official Notice” is taken that a cloud based network is state of the art and is old and well known. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify McRae based on the teachings of Hojilla for the purpose of as given in claim 2 above.
Claims 9,10,16,17 are slight variations of the rejected claims 2,3 above, and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 5,12,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McRae (US Publication 20160088328) in view of Patel (US Publication 20200111155) in further view of Xia et al (US Patent 10771458) in further view of Rao (US Publication 20140213227).
In reference to claim 5, McRae fails to explicitly teach the service interface implements at least one of IMAP, POP3, SMTP, calendar/contact protocol, or SIP. However, Rao teaches sharing content with devices in proximity, where the content is emails received from an email server. Sending/receiving emails via an email server inherently involves SMTP, POP3 or IMAP (see Rao, at least Abstract and ¶s 44,62, and Figure 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify McRae based on the teachings of Rao for the purpose of enhancing content sharing with friends and others in proximity.
Claims 12,19 are slight variations of the rejected claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights