DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to communication filed 9/19/2025.
The instant application having application No. 18/368,071 filed on September 14, 2023, is a continuation of the application having application No. 17/736,581 (now issued patent US 11,797,286 B2) filed on May 4, 2022, which is a continuation of the application having application No. 16/832862 (now issued patent US 11,347,493 B2) filed on March 27, 2020.
Status of the Claims
Claims 21-23, 25, 28-29, 31-33, 35, and 38-39 are amended, claims 26 and 36 are canceled, claims 41-42 are added. Accordingly, claims 21-25, 27-35, and 37-42 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding double patenting rejection: Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following double patenting rejection.
(B). Regarding art rejection: In regards to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 23-24, 27, 29, 31, 33-34, 37, and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,347,493 in view of Rodzevski et al (US 20150347912 A1 -- hereinafter Rodzevski), Burke et al (US 20090300602 A1 -- hereinafter Burke), Cohen et al. (US 20140172911 A1 -- hereinafter Cohen) and Hayton et al. (US 20100281528 A1 -- hereinafter Hayton). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as illustrated in the following table:
Instant Application
Reference Patent No. 11,347,493
21. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying an anticipated user activity based on user data corresponding to future activities of a user;
searching a plurality of websites corresponding to the anticipated user activity to identify an initial website, wherein the initial website provides a feature set corresponding to the anticipated user activity and a downloadable application program;
analyzing the initial website to determine whether an application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website;
based at least in part on determining that the[[an]] application program download restriction message is not displayed on the initial website, causing the downloadable application program to be automatically installed at a user device; and
based at least in part on detecting a user interaction with the user device, wherein the user interaction is not an uninstall command, causing the downloadable application program to be automatically uninstalled at the user device.
1. A method of temporarily downloading an application program from a website providing access to the application online for download to a user device, the method comprising:
identifying an anticipated user activity based on user data corresponding to future activities of a user;
The patent does not appear to explicitly disclose:
searching a plurality of websites corresponding to the anticipated user activity to identify an initial website, wherein the initial website provides a feature set corresponding to the anticipated user activity and a downloadable application program;
analyzing the initial website to determine whether an application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website;
based at least in part on determining that the[[an]] application program download restriction message is not displayed on the initial website, causing the downloadable application program to be automatically installed at a user device; and
based at least in part on detecting a user interaction with the user device, wherein the user interaction is not an uninstall command, causing the downloadable application program to be automatically uninstalled at the user device.
However, in analogous art, Rodzevski, Burke, Cohen and Hayton disclose these features, please refer to art rejections regarding claim 21 below.
23. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 21, further comprising:
based at least in part on detecting an absence of user interaction with the downloadable application program on the user device within a predefined time period, automatically uninstalling the downloadable application program from the user device.
24. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 23, further comprising:
determining the predefined time period based on a content type of the initial website.
1. ….and
in response to detecting absence of user interaction with the downloadable application program on the user device within the predefined time period, automatically uninstalling the downloadable application program from the user device. …
1. … setting, based on the identified content of the website, a predefined time period for detecting a user interaction with the downloadable application program; …
27. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 21, wherein identifying the anticipated user activity is performed based on user data, and the user data is generated from a plurality of datasets, wherein each dataset is from a distinct user account.
3. The method of claim 1, further including generating the user data from a dataset of a plurality of datasets, wherein each dataset is from a distinct user account.
29. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 21, further comprising automatically uninstalling the downloadable application program from the user device in response to a user reaction
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising automatically uninstalling the downloadable application program from the user device in response to a user reaction or a detected application program content change.
31. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented system comprising:
memory; and
control circuitry configured to:
identify an anticipated user activity based on user data corresponding to future activities of a user;
search a plurality of websites corresponding to the anticipated user activity to identify an initial website, wherein the initial website provides a feature set corresponding to the anticipated user activity and a downloadable application program;
analyze the initial website to determine whether an application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website;
based at least in part on determining that the[[an]] application program download restriction message is not present displayed on the initial website, cause the downloadable application program to be automatically installed at a user device; and
based at least in part on detecting a user interaction with the user device, wherein the user interaction is not an uninstall command, cause the downloadable application program to be automatically uninstalled at the user device.
11.A system for temporarily downloading an application program from a website providing access to the application online for download to a user device, the system comprising:
input circuitry configured to receive data from one or more corresponding data sources; and
control circuitry configured to:
identify an anticipated user activity based on user data corresponding to future activities of a user;
The patent does not appear to explicitly disclose
search a plurality of websites corresponding to the anticipated user activity to identify an initial website, wherein the initial website provides a feature set corresponding to the anticipated user activity and a downloadable application program;
analyze the initial website to determine whether an application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website;
based at least in part on determining that the[[an]] application program download restriction message is not present displayed on the initial website, cause the downloadable application program to be automatically installed at a user device; and
based at least in part on detecting a user interaction with the user device, wherein the user interaction is not an uninstall command, cause the downloadable application program to be automatically uninstalled at the user device.
However, in analogous art, Rodzevski, Burke, Cohen and Hayton disclose these features, please refer to art rejections regarding claims 31 and 21 below.
33. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 31, wherein the control circuitry is configured to:
based at least in part on detecting an absence of user interaction with the downloadable application program on the user device within a predefined time period, automatically uninstall the downloadable application program from the user device.
34. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 33, wherein the control circuitry is configured to:
determine the predefined time period based on a content type of the initial website.
11…. and in response to detecting absence of user interaction with the downloadable application program on the user device within the predefined time period, automatically uninstall the downloadable application program from the user device….
11….set, based on the identified content of the website, a predefined time period for detecting a user interaction with the downloadable application program; …
37. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 31, wherein identifying the anticipated user activity is performed based on user data, and the user data is generated from a plurality of datasets, wherein each dataset is from a distinct user account.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is configured to generate the user data from a dataset of a plurality of datasets, wherein each dataset is from a distinct user account.
39. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 31, wherein the control circuitry is configured to automatically uninstall the downloadable application program from the user device in response to a user reaction
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to automatically uninstall the downloadable application program from the user device in response to a user reaction or a detected application program content change.
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 21, 29, 31, 39, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodzevski et al (US 20150347912 A1 -- hereinafter Rodzevski) in view of Burke et al (US 20090300602 A1 -- hereinafter Burke), Cohen et al. (US 20140172911 A1 -- hereinafter Cohen) and Hayton et al. (US 20100281528 A1 -- hereinafter Hayton).
With respect to claim 21 (Currently Amended), Rodzevski discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying an anticipated user activity based on user data corresponding to future activities of a user (para [0081], “…As an example, if the user frequently rides his/her bike, recommendation logic 340 may contact various news related websites and identify news stories associated with biking, such as an upcoming bike race (e.g., the Tour de France, a local bike race, etc.) that may be of particular interest to the user. ….”);
searching a plurality of websites corresponding to the anticipated user activity to identify an initial website, wherein the initial website provides a feature set corresponding to the anticipated user activity and a downloadable application program (e.g. para [0056], “In one implementation, recommendation logic 340 may periodically search various online venues or application stores (e.g., Google Play, Apple Store, etc.) that provide access to applications that may be downloaded and/or purchased by users. In an exemplary implementation, recommendation logic 340 may categorize the activity identified by evaluation logic 320 and/or pattern matching logic 330, compare the category of the user's current activity to the categories available via the application store, and provide a recommendation to the user of user device 100.” Wherein online venues or application stores read on websites);
Rodzevski does not appear to explicitly disclose
analyzing the initial website to determine whether an application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website;
based at least in part on determining that the[[an]] application program download restriction message is not displayed on the initial website, causing the downloadable application program to be automatically installed at a user device; and
based at least in part on detecting a user interaction with the user device, wherein the user interaction is not an uninstall command, causing the downloadable application program to be automatically uninstalled at the user device.
However, in analogous art, Burke discloses
analyzing the initial website to determine whether an application program download restriction message [is displayed on the initial website] (e.g. para [0036], “… Based on the results, the server module 109 may block the download of particular application, may alert a user of the client 102 that downloading the software may adversely affect the client 102, …” wherein “based on the results” suggests analyzing the initial website, and alert a user suggests that the user would determine if a download restriction message is present);
based at least in part on determining that the[[an]] application program download restriction message is not displayed on the initial website], causing the downloadable application program to be automatically installed at a user device (e.g. para [0036], “… Based on the results, the server module 109 may block the download of particular application, may alert a user of the client 102 that downloading the software may adversely affect the client 102, or may either indicate that the download is acceptable or just allow the download to happen.” wherein indicating the download is acceptable or just allow the download reads on download restriction message is not present. Para [0043], “… processing proceeds to a block 312 where the program is downloaded and installed. …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Burke because it provides application performance information that can be referenced by other clients when they make a decision on whether to purchase an application. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing application performance information that can be referenced by other clients when they make a decision on whether to purchase an application as suggested by Burke (see [0032]).
Rodzevski as modified by Burke does not appear to explicitly disclose
(analyzing the initial website to determine whether an application program download restriction message) is displayed on the initial website;
based at least in part on detecting a user interaction with the user device, wherein the user interaction is not an uninstall command, causing the downloadable application program to be automatically uninstalled at the user device.
However, in analogous art, Cohen discloses
(analyzing the initial website to determine whether an application program download restriction message) is displayed on the initial website (para [0054], “…For example, the client may generate a pop-up window including the review information, rating information, cancel control, and download control in which the pop-up window is adjacent to or at least partially superimposed with the web page which contained the original alert.” Wherein the download control suggests that the original alert which is displayed on the initial website contains download control information, as disclosed by Burke, the download control may comprise alert or restriction to downloading, hence, the combination of Burke and Cohen renders the claim feature obvious);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Cohen because it provides techniques for the user to make a more intelligent decision about whether to download the native application (because the user has access to price, rating, and review information, for example) while still in the original context of the web page. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for the user to make a more intelligent decision about whether to download the native application as suggested by Cohen (see [0055]).
Rodzevski as modified by Burke and Cohen does not appear to explicitly disclose
based at least in part on detecting a user interaction with the user device, wherein the user interaction is not an uninstall command, causing the downloadable application program to be automatically uninstalled at the user device.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Hayton (e.g. para [0123], “… Once the user finishes accessing the attached file, the application is uninstalled from the user's application delivery store folder. …”,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Hayton because it provides techniques for accessing an application from a desktop on a client machine via an interactive supplication delivery store. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for accessing an application from a desktop on a client machine via an interactive supplication delivery store as suggested by Hayton (see [0005-0006]).
With respect to claim 29 (Currently Amended), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton teaches The method of claim 21, Hayton teaches further comprising automatically uninstalling the downloadable application program from the user device in response to a user reaction (e.g. para [0123], “… Once the user finishes accessing the attached file, the application is
uninstalled from the user's application delivery store folder. …”, For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 21).
With respect to claim 31 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a system to implement the method disclosed in claim 21, please see the rejections directed to claim 21 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 31. Note that, Rodzevski teaches A computer-implemented system comprising:
memory; and
control circuitry configured to (e.g. Figs. 1 and 2):
With respect to claim 39 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 29, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 41 (New), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton teaches The method of claim 21, Cohen teaches wherein analyzing the initial website to determine whether the application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website is performed using a natural language processing technique (e.g. para [0039], “… The browser 108 may then interpret and render the content of the search result 138 in human-readable format including, for example, an article title 140, an article preview 142, and an alert 144.” Also see para [0040]. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 21).
With respect to claim 42 (New), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton teaches The method of claim 21, Cohen teaches wherein analyzing the initial website to determine whether the application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website is performed using a web crawling technique (e.g. para [0037], “… A crawler for a search engine may be programmed to identify such an association in the text of the American Newspaper web page and may make note of such information at crawl time. ...” Also see para [0047, 0059]. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 21).
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodzevski in view of Burke, Cohen and Hayton as applied to claims 21 and 31 respectively, in further view of McKinlay et al (US 20030145316 A1 -- hereinafter McKinlay).
With respect to claim 22 (Currently Amended), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton teaches The method of claim 21, Burke in combination with Cohen discloses determining that the application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website, see office action regarding claim 21 above, but does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising:
based at least in part on determining that the[[an]] application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website
causing the downloadable alternative application program to be automatically installed at the user device.
However, in analogous art, McKinlay teaches further comprising:
based at least in part on determining that the[[an]] application program download restriction message is displayed on the initial website (e.g. para [0075] discloses authorization for downloading, also see office action regarding claim 21 about this claim feature.), identifying an alternative website from the plurality of websites, wherein the alternative website provides a feature set corresponding to the anticipated user activity and a downloadable alternative application program (e.g. para [0074], “… As another option, another page of the web site may be displayed to the user (i.e., the user is redirected to another page) if the authorization to download the plug-in application is denied by the user (and thus the downloading of the plug-in application does not occur). In such an embodiment, this page may include (i.e., display) more information for the user about the vendor, the plug-in application, the download manager application, and/or the software application. As a further option, the user may be redirected to another web site such as, for example, the vendor's web site or a third party's web site.” Wherein another page, the vendor’s web site or a third party’s web site reads on alternative website); and
causing the downloadable alternative application program to be automatically installed at the user device (para [0081], “… Once the software application has been completely downloaded to the client computer, the software application is then installed on to the client computer and a setup routine 1220 for configuring the software application may be executed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of McKinlay because it increases the likelihood of having a complete and successful download of software. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing the likelihood of having a complete and successful download of software as suggested by McKinlay (see [0006-0007]).
With respect to claim 32 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 22, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodzevski in view of Burke, Cohen and Hayton as applied to claims 21 and 31 respectively, in further view of Kumar (US 20160162270 A1 -- hereinafter Kumar cited from IDS filed on 9/14/2023).
With respect to claim 23 (Currently Amended), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton teaches The method of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising:
based at least in part on detecting an absence of user interaction with the downloadable application program on the user device within a predefined time period, automatically uninstalling the downloadable application program from the user device.
However, in analogous art, Kumar teaches further comprising:
based at least in part on detecting an absence of user interaction with the downloadable application program on the user device within a predefined time period, automatically uninstalling the downloadable application program from the user device (e.g. para [0058], “… For example, the flag may set a five-day time limit for the application. If the user has not interacted with the installed application within that time, then the client device may remove the installed application.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Kumar because it prevents the appearance of the client device's user interface from becoming cluttered. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing the appearance of the client device's user interface from becoming cluttered as suggested by Kumar (see [0058]).
With respect to claim 33 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 23, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodzevski in view of Burke, Cohen and Hayton as applied claims 21 and 31 respectively, in further view of NELSON (US 20170192640 A1 -- hereinafter NELSON).
With respect to claim 25 (Currently Amended), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton The method of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein:
a ranked order of the plurality of websites is determined
the method further comprises identifying the initial website based on the ranked order of the plurality of websites.
However, in analogous art, NELSON teaches wherein:
a ranked order of the plurality of websites is determined (e.g. para [0067], “… The information included in the state record 400A may also be based on measurements associated with the record 400A, such as how often the record 400A is retrieved during a search and how often user-selectable links generated for any of the access URL(s) 406A are selected by a user. The information may also indicate whether the state record 400A includes an AAM for a default state, or a deeper state, of a native app. In some examples, the search system 100, namely the set processing module 304, may use this information to generate a result score for the state record 400A, as described herein (e.g., upon identifying the record 400A and as part of ranking the record 400A among other identified state records).” Wherein how often the record is retrieved or how often the links or URLs are selected, and use this information to generate a result score read on the ranking of claim feature, and para [0021], “… each state record may include one or more access uniform resource locators (URLs) that enable the user device(s) 102 to access the state specified by the record. …” Thus ranking the identified state records reads on ranking URLs which read on the plurality of websites); and
the method further comprises identifying the initial website based on the ranked order of the plurality of websites. (e.g. para [0022], “… The result generation module 114 may then select one or more access URLs from the identified state records and transmit the selected access URLs to the user device 102 as the search results.” Wherein URLs read on websites).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of NELSON because it may improve user experience. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving user experience as suggested by NELSON (see [0017]).
With respect to claim 35 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 25, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodzevski in view of Burke, Cohen and Hayton as applied to claims 21 and 31 respectively, in further view of Montreuil (US 20200186959 A1 -- hereinafter Montreuil, cited from IDS filed on 9/14/2023).
With respect to claim 27 (Previously Presented), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton teaches The method of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein identifying the anticipated user activity is performed based on user data, and the user data is generated from a plurality of datasets, wherein each dataset is from a distinct user account.
However, in analogous art, Montreuil teaches
wherein identifying the anticipated user activity is performed based on user data, and the user data is generated from a plurality of datasets, wherein each dataset is from a distinct user account (para [0046], “In further embodiments, the one or more message templates may be generated further based on one or both of at least one user data associated with the one or more user accounts and user data associated with the user account…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the features of Montreuil because Montreuil’s teaching provides “a method of facilitating communication based on user interest”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing “a method of facilitating communication based on user interest” (Montreuil, Abstract).
With respect to claim 37 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 27, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 28, 30, 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodzevski in view of Burke, Cohen and Hayton as applied to claims 21 and 31 respectively, in further view of Lau et al (US 20120042036 A1 – hereinafter Lau, cited from IDS filed on 9/14/2023).
With respect to claim 28 (Currently Amended), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton teaches The method of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising:
determining the anticipated user activity has ended;
determining whether the downloadable application program is still installed on the user device when the anticipated user activity has ended; and
based at least in part on determining the downloadable application program is still installed on the user device when the anticipated user activity has ended, causing the downloadable application program to be uninstalled from the user device.
However, in analogous art, Lau discloses further comprising:
determining the anticipated user activity has ended (e.g. para [0065], “… if a mobile device is determined to have left the designated context area without using the downloaded application… ” wherein left the designated context area reads on user activity has ended);
determining whether the downloadable application program is still installed on the user device when the anticipated user activity has ended (e.g. para [0065], “At process block 470, a check is made to determine whether the downloaded applications should be retained. For example, if a mobile device is determined to have left the designated context area without using the downloaded application, then the application is not retained. …” wherein determine whether the downloaded applications should be retained suggest determining whether the application program is still installed); and
based at least in part on determining the downloadable application program is still installed on the user device when the anticipated user activity has ended, causing the downloadable application program to be uninstalled from the user device (e.g. para [0065], “At process block 470, a check is made to determine whether the downloaded applications should be retained. For example, if a mobile device is determined to have left the designated context area without using the downloaded application, then the application is not retained. …” para [0067], “… At process block 490, the application is deleted from the mobile device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the features of Lau because Montreuil’s teaching provides techniques for allowing mobile device users to discover applications for a mobile device using context information describing the current environment of a mobile device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for allowing mobile device users to discover applications for a mobile device using context information describing the current environment of a mobile device (Lau, para [0004-0005]).
With respect to claim 30 (Previously Presented), Rodzevski as modified by Burke, Cohen and Hayton teaches The method of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein identifying the anticipated user activity is based on analyzing one or more of user preference data, e-mail data, text message data, image data, social media data or calendar data associated with the user data, however, this is taught in analogous art, Lau (para [0056], “…other identifying information; or data for a particular user, such as calendar data describing events or locations.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the features of Lau because Montreuil’s teaching provides techniques for allowing mobile device users to discover applications for a mobile device using context information describing the current environment of a mobile device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for allowing mobile device users to discover applications for a mobile device using context information describing the current environment of a mobile device (Lau, para [0004-0005]).
With respect to claim 38 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 28, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 40 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 30, and is rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and when double patenting rejections are overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding art and double patenting rejections filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered and are moot upon new grounds of rejections made in this office action above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/Zengpu Wei/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197