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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/28/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16-23 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 9/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that:
Claim 1-4, 8-12 and 16-23 comply with the written description requirement
under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
In response to point (i), according to Applicant,
“[p]aragraph [0048] of the Specification as filed discloses that ‘the offer lookup 614 may be part of a handshake technique by which the user device 604 registers the accessory hardware device 602,’ which expressly places communication with the service system inside the handshake/registration exchange. Paragraph [0047] discloses that ‘[t]he flow diagram begins with an initiation of a registration process 610. In some embodiments, the registration process may be part of a connection event in which the user device 604 initiates a connection with an accessory hardware device 602.’ Paragraph [0027] discloses that ‘the connection process includes necessary handshakes or other data transmittals that enable interoperability between the electronic device and the accessory hardware device.’ Paragraphs [0015] and [0044] each disclose that ‘the connection event may involve a handshake with one or more back-end servers, through which the hardware accessory device may be registered.’ Thus, the amendment to recite ‘as part of a handshake by which the local device registers the hardware accessory’ complies with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”
(Remarks at 6) Examiner respectfully disagree. Applicant’s specification disclosed the offer lookup maybe part of a handshake technique by which the user device 604 registers the accessory hardware device 602 [48], however, the specification fails to disclose transmit an indication to the service system that the access to the service has been initiated as part of the handshake technique by which the user device 604 registers the accessory hardware device. In other words, the offer lookup (i.e., corresponding to service lookup/identifying) is not the recited “transmit an indication to the service system that the access to the service has been initiated”. Thus, the specification does not have support for the limitation of “as part of a handshake by which the local device registers the hardware accessory, transmitting an indication to the service system that the access to the service has been initiated” For examination purpose, the limitation of “as part of a handshake by which the local device registers the hardware accessory, transmitting an indication to the service system that the access to the service has been initiated” is interpreted as “after a handshake by which the local device registers the hardware accessory, transmitting an indication to the service system that the access to the service has been initiated”.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-4, 8-12 and 16-23 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 joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In specific, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite “as part of a handshake by which the local device registers the hardware accessory, transmitting an indication to the service system that the access to the service has been initiated”. Although paragraph 48 of Applicant’s specification discloses ‘the offer lookup 614 may be part of a handshake technique by which the user device 604 registers the accessory hardware device 602”, but does not disclose transmit an indication to the service system that the access to the service has been initiated as part of the handshake technique by which the user device 604 registers the accessory hardware device. Applicant’s specification, at the time the application was filed, does not have support for the limitation. Thus, these claims fail the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following terms lack proper antecedent basis:
the pairing process – claims 21, 22, 23
Claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood:
As per claim 21, line 2, it is uncertain whether “a handshake” refers to “a handshake” in claim 1, line 10. For examination purpose, handshake in claim 21 is interpreted as different from handshake in claim 1.
As per claim 22, line 2, it is uncertain whether “a handshake” refers to “a handshake” in claim 9, line 10. For examination purpose, handshake in claim 22 is interpreted as different from handshake in claim 9.
As per claim 23, line 2, it is uncertain whether “a handshake” refers to “a handshake” in claim 17, line 13. For examination purpose, handshake in claim 23 is interpreted as different from handshake in claim 17.
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 1-4, 8-12 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al, US 2011/0125601 (hereinafter Carpenter) in view of Foster et al, US 2017/0229009 (hereinafter Foster).
As per claim 1, Carpenter teaches the invention substantially as claimed comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to:
identify, in response to a connection for a hardware accessory to a local device, a service for the local device based on the hardware accessory ([150][151][156][160][161][162][207], e.g., identify, in response to the connection, services for the accessory; identify tailored/specific/applicable goods/services to the accessory before the user experience is invoked ([157], i.e., before the output of accessory specific goods/services at an interface of the host/mobile device);
present a prompt on in the connection interface to initiate access by the local device to a service system providing the service ([151][152][157][161][164][166][167][174][195], e.g., outputting/displaying a user interface of the mobile/host device asking if interested in browsing, purchasing, etc. accessory specific goods/applications/services at an online marketplace (i.e., to initiate access by host/mobile device to a service system providing the service));
upon receiving an affirmative response to the prompt, display an enrollment interface for service on the local device ([152][157][164][167[181][195][198], e.g., if so, outputting/displaying information related to subscription based goods/services on host/mobile device; outputting/displaying an interface on the host/mobile device for purchase, download, playback, etc. of accessory specific goods/services); and
as part of a handshake by which the local device registers the hardware accessory ([17][156][160], e.g., after the exchange of information between mobile host device/client and the online marketplace by which the mobile host device/client transmits accessory information to the online marketplace for goods and services (i.e., inherently comprised registers the hardware accessory at the online marketplace)), transmit an indication to the service system that the access to the service has been initiated ([151][152][156][160][166], e.g., selecting, downloading, playback of the selected accessory specific goods/services provided by the online market place (i.e., it is inherent that the host/mobile device must transmit an indication of the selected goods/services to the online market place to indicate that the access to the goods/services has been selected/initiated in order to access the goods/services for download/playback))
Although Carpenter teaches identify, in response to a connection for a hardware accessory to a local device (e.g., mobile phone), a service for the local device based on the hardware accessory, however, Carpenter is silence in regards to a connection includes a pairing request for hardware accessory in a connection interface on the local device. Carpenter does teach connection between the local device and the accessory via wireless connection [207]. Foster teaches establishing a connection between a local device (e.g., mobile phone) and a hardware accessory ([54]) includes a pair request for a hardware accessory in a connection interface on the local device ([71], e.g., a paring request for a hardware accessory on a mobile phone screen, user interface of mobile phone)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Foster’s teaching with Carpenter’s system in order allow a user of the local device in Carpenter’s system to maintain control of the connection process, which also help to ensure that the connection is secure [71].
As per claim 2, Carpenter and Foster teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Carpenter and Foster further teach wherein the pair request comprises a hardware accessory identifier, and wherein the computer readable code to identify the service comprises computer readable code to: provide the hardware accessory identifier to the service system, wherein the service system identifies one or more eligible services based on the hardware accessory identifier (Carpenter, [17][151][156][160]; Foster, [71]).
As per claim 3, Carpenter and Foster teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 2 above. Carpenter and Foster further teach wherein the service system further identifies one or more eligible services based on a user account associated with the pair request (Carpenter, [181][185], e.g., identifies subscription based services based on purchased subscription; Foster [71]).
As per claim 4, Carpenter and Foster teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 3 above. Carpenter further teach wherein the computer readable code to identify the service further comprises computer readable code to: select the service from the one or more eligible services based on a best match criterion ([151][156][160][183][202][203]).
As per claim 8, Carpenter and Foster teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Carpenter further teach wherein the computer readable code to identify the service further comprises computer readable code to confirm that the local device does not currently have access to the service ([154], e.g., the local/host device is unable to wirelessly connect to a network and access to services upon connection of local/host device to accessory).
As per claims 9 and 17, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. See Carpenter figs. 21; 23, e.g., for one or more processors; and one or more computer readable media.
As per claims 10 and 18, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claims 11 and 19, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
As per claims 12 and 20, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
As per claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 above.
As per claim 21, Carpenter and Foster teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Foster further teach wherein the pairing process includes a handshake that enables interoperability between the local device and the hardware accessory ([71], e.g., pairing process includes exchange of encryption keys).
As per claims 22 and 23, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
