DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a Final Office action in response to applicant's amendment and response received 12/17/2025, responding to the 09/26/2025 non-final office action provided in rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-20.
Claims 3, 5, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 18-19 and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-9, and 12-22 are pending and are addressed in this office action. New grounds of rejection are presented in view of the newly presented limitation(s).
Response to Amendments and Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, all objections to the claims presented in the Previous Action are hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 (b), Applicant argues that line 6 of claim 1 recites "receiving, by the first device, a second operation performed on the first interface" (emphasis added). Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits claim 1 does not recite "a second application", and requests withdrawal of the rejections in the next Action. (Remarks, page 8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation / explanation. Examiner does not see two distinct “second operation” which perform by first and second interface. Examiner further notes there in no written description of a second interface different from the first interface. Thus, examiner maintain the 112(b) rejection. Applicant’s argument have been considered but not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s amendment overcome 101 abstract idea.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102/103, applicant argument have been considered but moot in view of new ground rejection.
Applicant offers no other arguments beyond arguing allowability for the reasons cited for the independent claim(s) or dependence upon said claims. These arguments are considered met.
Examiner notes
(A). Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(B). Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a join inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 recites the limitation "a second interface different from the first interface" This limitation is not supported in the specification.
Per claims 2-7, 12-17, and 18-22, these claims are rejected based on dependency on claims 1, 8 and 9.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhao et a. in view of et al. Jevans et al. (US 20160127367 A1, hereinafter Jevans).
As to claim 1, Zhao discloses an application installation method, comprising:
receiving, by a first device, a first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is an operation of selecting a first application from a third-party application for downloading (abstract, …method using silence installation, a device and a computer device, the management system [i.e. first device] of the intelligent terminal monitors whether there is a silent installation event of the first application software … . Further, page 2, a silence installation [i.e. downloading] event of the first application software if there is a silent installation event of the first application software, then identifying whether the first application software is the third party application);
displaying, by the first device, a first interface, wherein the first interface is a risk prompt interface of the first application (page 2, … if the first application software is the third party application, then intercepting the silent installation of the first application software In the application, the management system automatically monitors the silence installation of the third party application, and intercepting the installation action, so as to avoid the memory of the intelligent terminal is greatly consumed, affecting the normal use [i.e. risk] of the intelligent terminal. Further, page 3, par. 4, … the same time, the installation prompting information of the first application software is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal, … );
receiving, by the first device, a second operation performed on the first interface (page 5, … the installation prompt information is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal to display, so that the user can know the situation in time. the management system monitors whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually inputs [i.e. second operation] the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. … . Note: applicant’s spec par. 0009 state the second operation includes at least one of the following: a pressing [i.e. input] parameter of the second operation);
displaying, by the first device and based on the second operation being a device operation (page 5, … installation information to generate installation prompt information, and the installation prompt information is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal to display, so that the user can know the situation in time. the management system monitors [i.e. the first device] whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually inputs the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. if the user does not input the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, or the user inputs the rejection [i.e. second operation] instruction, then the management system terminates the installation of the first application software … ),
Zhao does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Jevans discloses a second interface different from the first interface, wherein the second interface is used to prompt the user with an installation risk (Fig. 5, par. 0098, MDM system 502 can communicatively couple with the application risk control system 504 using an administrator policy configuration interface 522. An administrator can configure application related policies of the application risk control system 504 using the interface 522. The MDM system 502 can also implement a command control interface 524 that allows control commands to be exchanged between the MDM system 502 and the application risk control system 504. By way of example, the interface 524 allows for mobile device configuration changes, removal of the mobile device from the MDM system 502, alert generation, and reporting to occur. In some embodiments, the application risk control system 504 uses the interface 524 when it determines that a policy has been violated by a mobile device, such as when the mobile device installs an application that poses a risk to the MDM system 502. Note: interface 522 considered as first interface and interface 524 consider as second interface. The two interfaces are different than each other based on their functionalities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhao to include a second interface different from the first interface, wherein the second interface is used to prompt the user with an installation risk, as disclosed by Jevans, for the purpose of generating / reporting alert message ).
As to claim 2, Zhao discloses the method wherein the method further comprises:
determining, by the first device based on a feature of the second operation, that the second operation is the device operation (page 5, … installation information to generate installation prompt information, and the installation prompt information is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal to display, so that the user can know the situation in time. the management system monitors [i.e. determine by the first device] whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually inputs the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. if the user does not input the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, or the user inputs the rejection [i.e. second operation] instruction, then the management system terminates the installation of the first application software … ), wherein the feature of the second operation comprises at least one of the following:
(page 5, … the installation prompt information is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal to display, so that the user can know the situation in time. the management system monitors whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually inputs [i.e. second operation] the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. … . Note: applicant’s spec par. 0009 state the second operation includes at least one of the following: a pressing [i.e. input] parameter of the second operation).
As to claim 7. Zhao discloses the method wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first device (page 4, obtaining the uid of the first application software (User Identification, user identity), and judging whether the uid of the first application software is greater than the preset value, the preset value is preferably 10000. if the uid of the first application software is greater than the preset value, then the management system determines that the first application software is the system application),
a fourth operation of the user, wherein the fourth operation is an operation of selecting a second application from the third-party application for downloading (page 6, … the management system is respectively with the request times corresponding to each second application software, the request times representing the second request application software downloading the third party application times, and the third party application adopts the silence installation mode. the management system updates the second application software request to download … . Note: applicant’s spec par. 0141 stat the fourth operation, “The fourth operation is an operation of selecting a second application from the third-party application for downloading);
displaying, by the first device, a third interface, wherein the third interface is a risk prompt interface of the second application (page 2, … if the first application software is the third party application, then intercepting the silent installation of the first application software In the application, the management system automatically monitors the silence installation of the third party application, and intercepting the installation action, so as to avoid the memory of the intelligent terminal is greatly consumed, affecting the normal use [i.e. risk] of the intelligent terminal. Further, page 3, par. 4, … the same time, the installation prompting information of the first application software is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal, … );
receiving, by the first device, a fifth operation performed on the third interface (page 5,… the management system monitors whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually [i.e. second operation] inputs the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. … . Note: applicant’s spec par. 0141 state the fifth operation “determines that the fifth operation is a manual operation”);
determining, by the first device, that the fifth operation is a manual operation (page 5, … the management system monitors whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually [i.e. second operation] inputs the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. … .); and
continuing, by the first device, to install the second application (page 4, … the management system monitors the preset time period after outputting the installation prompting information, whether receiving the installation confirmation instruction fed back by the user. if receiving the installation confirmation instruction fed back by the user in the preset time period, then the management system does not intercept the first application software, the first application software continues to install on the intelligent terminal until the installation is completed. … ).
As to claim 8, Zhao discloses an electronic device, comprising one or more processors and one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories store one or more programming instructions to perform operations comprising (page 7, FIG. 3, the embodiment of the invention further claims a computer device, the computer device can be a server, the internal structure can be shown in FIG. 3. The computer device comprises a processor connected by the system bus, a memory … ):
receiving a first operation of a user, wherein the first operation is an operation of selecting a first application from a third-party application for downloading (abstract, …method using silence installation, a device and a computer device, the management system [i.e. first device] of the intelligent terminal monitors whether there is a silent installation event of the first application software … . Further, page 2, a silence installation [i.e. downloading] event of the first application software if there is a silent installation event of the first application software, then identifying whether the first application software is the third party application);
displaying a first interface, wherein the first interface is a risk prompt interface of the first application (page 2, … if the first application software is the third party application, then intercepting the silent installation of the first application software In the application, the management system automatically monitors the silence installation of the third party application, and intercepting the installation action, so as to avoid the memory of the intelligent terminal is greatly consumed, affecting the normal use [i.e. risk] of the intelligent terminal. Further, page 3, par. 4, … the same time, the installation prompting information of the first application software is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal, … );
receiving a second operation performed on the first interface (page 5, … the installation prompt information is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal to display, so that the user can know the situation in time. the management system monitors whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually inputs [i.e. second operation] the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. … . Note: applicant’s spec par. 0009 state the second operation includes at least one of the following: a pressing [i.e. input] parameter of the second operation);
displaying, based on the second operation being a device operation (page 5, … installation information to generate installation prompt information, and the installation prompt information is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal to display, so that the user can know the situation in time. the management system monitors [i.e. determine by the first device] whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually inputs the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. if the user does not input the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, or the user inputs the rejection [i.e. second operation] instruction, then the management system terminates the installation of the first application software … ).
Zhao does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Jevans discloses a second interface different from the first interface, wherein the second interface is used to prompt the user with an installation risk (Fig. 5, par. 0098, MDM system 502 can communicatively couple with the application risk control system 504 using an administrator policy configuration interface 522. An administrator can configure application related policies of the application risk control system 504 using the interface 522. The MDM system 502 can also implement a command control interface 524 that allows control commands to be exchanged between the MDM system 502 and the application risk control system 504. By way of example, the interface 524 allows for mobile device configuration changes, removal of the mobile device from the MDM system 502, alert generation, and reporting to occur. In some embodiments, the application risk control system 504 uses the interface 524 when it determines that a policy has been violated by a mobile device, such as when the mobile device installs an application that poses a risk to the MDM system 502. Note: interface 522 considered as first interface and interface 524 consider as second interface. The two interfaces are different than each other based on their functionalities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhao to include a second interface different from the first interface, wherein the second interface is used to prompt the user with an installation risk, as disclosed by Jevans, for the purpose of generating / reporting alert message ).
As to claim 9, it recites a chip having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1. Zhao discloses a chip (i.e., computer device).
As to claim 12, it recites similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 17, Zhao discloses the electronic device wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a fourth operation of the user (page 4, obtaining the uid of the first application software (User Identification, user identity), and judging whether the uid of the first application software is greater than the preset value, the preset value is preferably 10000. if the uid of the first application software is greater than the preset value, then the management system determines that the first application software is the system application), wherein the fourth operation is an operation of selecting a second application from the third-party application for downloading (page 6, … the management system is respectively with the request times corresponding to each second application software, the request times representing the second request application software downloading the third party application times, and the third party application adopts the silence installation mode. the management system updates the second application software request to download … . Note: applicant’s spec par. 0141 stat the fourth operation, “The fourth operation is an operation of selecting a second application from the third-party application for downloading);
displaying, a third interface, wherein the third interface is a risk prompt interface of the second application (page 2, … if the first application software is the third party application, then intercepting the silent installation of the first application software In the application, the management system automatically monitors the silence installation of the third party application, and intercepting the installation action, so as to avoid the memory of the intelligent terminal is greatly consumed, affecting the normal use [i.e. risk] of the intelligent terminal. Further, page 3, par. 4, … the same time, the installation prompting information of the first application software is output to the display interface of the intelligent terminal, … );
receiving a fifth operation performed on the third interface (page 5,… the management system monitors whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually [i.e. second operation] inputs the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. … . Note: applicant’s spec par. 0141 state the fifth operation “determines that the fifth operation is a manual operation”);
determining that the fifth operation is a manual operation (page 5, … the management system monitors whether the installation confirmation instruction of the user is received in the preset time period, if the user manually [i.e. second operation] inputs the installation confirmation instruction in the preset time period, the intelligent system does not intercept the silent installation of the first application software, so that the first application software can be normally installed on the intelligent terminal. … .); and
continuing to install the second application (page 4, … the management system monitors the preset time period after outputting the installation prompting information, whether receiving the installation confirmation instruction fed back by the user. if receiving the installation confirmation instruction fed back by the user in the preset time period, then the management system does not intercept the first application software, the first application software continues to install on the intelligent terminal until the installation is completed. … ).
As to claim 18, it recites similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3-4, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhao et a. in view of Jevans et al. (US 20160127367 A1, hereinafter Jevans) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 9 in the above and further in view of Savant et al. (WO 2016176373 A1, hereinafter Sanat)..
As to claim 3, Zhao as modified by Jevans does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Savant discloses the method wherein before receiving, by the first device, the first operation of the user, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first device, a third operation of the user, wherein the third operation indicates the first device to enable an accessibility mode (page 12, ll. 22-23, FIG. 2, receive, at the security application, accessibility event 213 that indicates that a user of
computing device 202 is viewing user interface 216 of application 214. Further, page. 15, ll. 3-6 FIG. 2, content 218 may reside within and/or be hosted by content server 208. In this example, user interface 216 may provide a path or link that enables the user to access content 218 on content server 208 … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhao to include the method wherein before the receiving, by a first device, a first operation of a user, the method further comprises: receiving, by the first device, a third operation of the user, wherein the third operation indicates the first device to enable an accessibility mode, as disclosed by Savant, for the purpose of determining that an application associated with an accessibility event may provide the user with harmful content (see page 22).
As to claim 4. Savanta discloses the method wherein the second interface is further used to prompt the user that the first device has enabled the accessibility mode (page 14, ll. 31 to ll. 6 of page 15 , a user interface may directly provide [i.e. prompt the user] a user with content. For example, as shown within FIG. 2, content 218 may reside within user interface 216. I n this example, content 218 may represent an image, text, video, etc. currently displayed within user interface 216. However, in other examples, a user interface may represent a platform for accessing content. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, content 218 may reside within and/or be hosted by content server 208. In this example, user interface 216 may provide a path or link that enables the user to access content 218 on content server 208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhao to include the method wherein before the receiving, by a first device, a first operation of a user, the method wherein the second interface is further used to prompt the user that the first device has enabled the accessibility mode, as disclosed by Savant, for the purpose of determining that an application associated with an accessibility event may provide the user with harmful content (see page 22).
As to claim 13, Savanta discloses the electronic device wherein before receiving the first operation of the user, the operations further comprise:
receiving, by the first device, a third operation of the user, wherein the third operation indicates the an accessibility mode (page 12, ll. 22-23, FIG. 2, receive, at the security application, accessibility event 213 that indicates that a user of computing device 202 [i.e. electronic device] is viewing user interface 216 of application 214. Further, page. 15, ll. 3-6 FIG. 2, content 218 may reside within and/or be hosted by content server 208. In this example, user interface 216 may provide a path or link that enables the user to access content 218 on content server 208 … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhao to include receiving, by the first device, a third operation of the user, wherein the third operation indicates the an accessibility mode, a third operation of the user, wherein the third operation indicates the first device to enable an accessibility mode, as disclosed by Savant, for the purpose of determining that an application associated with an accessibility event may provide the user with harmful content (see page 22).
As to claim 14, Savanta discloses the electronic device wherein the second interface is further used to prompt the user that the electronic device has enabled the accessibility mode (page 12, ll. 22-23, FIG. 2, receive, at the security application, accessibility event 213 that indicates that a user of computing device 202 [i.e. electronic device] is viewing user interface 216 of application 214. Further, page 14, ll. 31 to ll. 6 of page 15 , a user interface may directly provide [i.e. prompt the user] a user with content. For example, as shown within FIG. 2, content 218 may reside within user interface 216. I n this example, content 218 may represent an image, text, video, etc. currently displayed within user interface 216. However, in other examples, a user interface may represent a platform for accessing content. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, content 218 may reside within and/or be hosted by content server 208. In this example, user interface 216 may provide a path or link that enables the user to access content 218 on content server 208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhao to include the electronic device wherein the second interface is further used to prompt the user that the electronic device has enabled the accessibility mode, as disclosed by Savant, for the purpose of determining that an application associated with an accessibility event may provide the user with harmful content (see page 22).
As to claim 19, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 20, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5-6, 15-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhao et al. and Jevans et al. (US 20160127367 A1, hereinafter Jevans) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 9 in the above and further in view in view of Loreskar et al (US 20200259668 A1, hereinafter Loreskar).
As to claim 5. Zhao as modified by Jevans does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Loreskar discloses the method wherein before displaying, by the first device,
the first interface, the method further comprises: determining, by the first device, that the first application is an application that is n (par. 0022, … when a trusted application is to be installed in a device, the device first is attested to be valid before the installation is allowed to proceed and any application certificate generated for enrolling the application into the chain of trust. This can allow the originator of the application to verify that the intended device is not a fake device or potentially black-listed device, but is a legitimate device having certain properties. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhao to include the method wherein before the displaying, by the first device, a first interface, the method further comprises: determining, by the first device, that the first application is an application that is a blacklisted application, as disclosed by Loreskar, for the purpose to valid before the installation is allowed to proceed and any application certificate generated for installing the application (see paragraph 22).
As to claim 6, Loreskar discloses the method wherein the permission setting interface of the first application comprises at least one of the following:
permission to write storage information of the first device;
(par. 0083, … (14) The method of any of clauses (1) to (13), comprising determining, in dependence on at least one device permission or constraint defined for the electronic device … (15) The method of clause (14), wherein said at least one device permission or constraint specifies information to be included in the generated application certificate for the specified application. (16) The method of any of clauses (1) to (15), comprising storing [i.e. storage information] the generated application certificate in a storage location accessible to the specified application. …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhao to include the method wherein the permission setting interface of the first application comprise permission to write storage information of the first device, as disclosed by Loreskar, for the purpose to installed applications associated with at least one device permission or constraint defining capabilities of the device (see paragraph 32).
As to claim 15, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 16, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 21, it is the device claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 22, it is the device claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
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 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 Mohammad Kabir whose telephone number is (571)270-13411. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Sough can be reached on (571) 272-6799. 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.
/Mohammad Kabir/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. SOUGH/spe, art unit 2192