DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is response to communication filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 1-14 and 17-22 are pending in this action.
Claims 15-16 are canceled.
This Action is final.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pub. No. 2018/0027120 A1 to Peterson et al. (hereinafter “Peterson”) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2021/0026978 A1 to Poothokaran et al. (hereinafter “Poothokaran”)
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses a first mobile device, comprising: at least one memory (mobile device with processor and memory); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory configured to cause the first mobile device to (Fig1 and Fig.2): detect an event associated with a first application on the first mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; detects user interaction a first device is employed in a voice call); transmit an interface generated by a second application that is installed ( Fig.3, paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; Peterson discloses that generating an application interface on the first mobile device and transmitting the interface to a second mobile device. Because the interface is generated on the first mobile device by executing application, the application must be installed or otherwise stored in memory of the first device) on the first mobile device to a second mobile device based on the event associated with the first application and a request to use the second application on the first mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; transfer UI or session from first device to second device that software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone) and receive, from the second mobile device, information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; if a first device is employed in a voice call, e.g., if a voice call is received at a first device at 301, a user may wish to answer the voice call, or at some point transfer the voice call, to another device, e.g., a second device such as a smart phone or tablet. Thus, an embodiment determines if a transfer requirement exists, e.g., data that dictates that the device currently handling the voice call should transfer the voice call to another device. For example, illustrated at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
However, Peterson does explicitly teach receive, from the second mobile device, monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device.
In the same field of endeavor, Poothokaran discloses receive, from the second mobile device, monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0021] and [ [0031] ; Based on determined foreground applications, the system 10 via the control manager 20 and control agent 14 on the OS2 user devices 12 institutes device controls and provides alerts and self-correction guides to supervised users and alerts and reports including activity summaries to supervisory users. Monitoring usage of an application on a second mobile device and transmitting usage information (e.g., report or alert) to another device).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Peterson’s teaching with a feature of receive, from the second mobile device, monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device as taught by Poothokaran in order to determine how much other user is using particular application, limiting use of such applications, and limiting overall use of other user’s device (paragraph [0002]; Poothokaran).
Regarding claim 2, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein the first application and the second application execute on the first mobile device (paragraphs Fig.3, [0029] and [0031]; at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
Regarding claim 3, Peterson discloses he first mobile device of claim 1, wherein: the first application utilizes a first wireless technology; and the second application utilizes a second wireless technology different from the first wireless technology (paragraphs [0017]- [0018]; applications running on the user's desktop or laptop computer. For example, VoIP phones can be installed as an application running on a desktop or laptop computer as well as on a smart phone or a tablet computing device).
Regarding claim 4, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein: the first application is a video call application that utilizes at least one of a voice over internet protocol (VOIP) connection, a cellular connection, or a Wi-Fi connection; and the second application is an incoming call that utilizes at least one of the VOIP connection, the cellular connection, or the Wi-Fi connection (paragraphs [0017] and [0018]; VoIP phones can be installed as an application running on a desktop or laptop computer as well as on a smart phone or a tablet computing device).
Regarding claim 5, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein the event includes an active use of the first application on the first mobile device (paragraph [0031]; a first device is employed in a voice call).
Regarding claim 6, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein the event includes a scheduled use of the first application on the first mobile device that conflicts with using the second application on the first mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone); and receive, from the second mobile device, information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; if a first device is employed in a voice call, e.g., if a voice call is received at a first device at 301, a user may wish to answer the voice call, or at some point transfer the voice call, to another device, e.g., a second device such as a smart phone or tablet. Thus, an embodiment determines if a transfer requirement exists, e.g., data that dictates that the device currently handling the voice call should transfer the voice call to another device. For example, illustrated at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
However, Peterson does explicitly teach receive, from the second mobile device, monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device.
In the same field of endeavor, Poothokaran discloses receive, from the second mobile device, monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0021] and [ [0031] ; Based on determined foreground applications, the system 10 via the control manager 20 and control agent 14 on the OS2 user devices 12 institutes device controls and provides alerts and self-correction guides to supervised users and alerts and reports including activity summaries to supervisory users. Monitoring usage of an application on a second mobile device and transmitting usage information (e.g., report or alert) to another device).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Peterson’s teaching with a feature of receive, from the second mobile device, monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device as taught by Poothokaran in order to determine how much other user is using particular application, limiting use of such applications, and limiting overall use of other user’s device (paragraph [0002]; Poothokaran).
Regarding claim 7, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein the request to use the second application includes at least one of an incoming phone call, a notification on a display of the first mobile device, or a message received at the first mobile device (paragraph [0031]; software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
Regarding claim 8, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein the interface generated by the second application is transmitted in response to an approval of the request received at the first mobile device (paragraphs [0036] and [0039]; voice call may be transferred to the second device prior to the call being accepted by the first device, i.e., responsive to the transfer request issued by the second device. However, the call may be transferred to the second device after the call has been received and accepted at the first device).
Regarding claim 9, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first mobile device to terminate transmission the interface generated by of the second application to the second mobile device based on the information of the second application indicating that the second application is closed on the second mobile device or based on user input received at the first mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0038]; if a first device is employed in a voice call, e.g., if a voice call is received at a first device at 301, a user may wish to answer the voice call, or at some point transfer the voice call, to another device, e.g., a second device such as a smart phone or tablet. Thus, an embodiment determines if a transfer requirement exists, e.g., data that dictates that the device currently handling the voice call should transfer the voice call to another device. For example, illustrated at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
However, Peterson does explicitly teach monitoring information of the second application.
In the same field of endeavor, Poothokaran discloses monitoring information of the second application (paragraphs [0021] and [ [0031]; Based on determined foreground applications, the system 10 via the control manager 20 and control agent 14 on the OS2 user devices 12 institutes device controls and provides alerts and self-correction guides to supervised users and alerts and reports including activity summaries to supervisory users. Monitoring usage of an application on a second mobile device and transmitting usage information (e.g., report or alert) to another device).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Peterson’s teaching with a feature of monitoring information of the second application as taught by Poothokaran in order to determine how much other user is using particular application, limiting use of such applications, and limiting overall use of other user’s device (paragraph [0002]; Poothokaran).
Regarding claim 10, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein the interface generated by the second application transmitted to the second mobile device differs from an interface displayed on the first mobile device that is associated with the second application (paragraphs [0031] and [0038]; software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone); and receive, from the second mobile device, information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; if a first device is employed in a voice call, e.g., if a voice call is received at a first device at 301, a user may wish to answer the voice call, or at some point transfer the voice call, to another device, e.g., a second device such as a smart phone or tablet. Thus, an embodiment determines if a transfer requirement exists, e.g., data that dictates that the device currently handling the voice call should transfer the voice call to another device. For example, illustrated at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
However, Peterson does explicitly teach monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device.
In the same field of endeavor, Poothokaran discloses monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0021] and [ [0031]; Based on determined foreground applications, the system 10 via the control manager 20 and control agent 14 on the OS2 user devices 12 institutes device controls and provides alerts and self-correction guides to supervised users and alerts and reports including activity summaries to supervisory users. Monitoring usage of an application on a second mobile device and transmitting usage information (e.g., report or alert) to another device).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Peterson’s teaching with a feature of monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device as taught by Poothokaran in order to determine how much other user is using particular application, limiting use of such applications, and limiting overall use of other user’s device (paragraph [0002]; Poothokaran).
Regarding claim 11, Peterson discloses a method, comprising: detecting an event associated with a first application on a first mobile device (paragraph [0031]; a first device is employed in a voice call); transmitting an interface generated by a second application installed on the first mobile device to a second mobile device based on the event associated with the first application and a request to use the second application on the first mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone); and receiving, from the second mobile device, information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; if a first device is employed in a voice call, e.g., if a voice call is received at a first device at 301, a user may wish to answer the voice call, or at some point transfer the voice call, to another device, e.g., a second device such as a smart phone or tablet. Thus, an embodiment determines if a transfer requirement exists, e.g., data that dictates that the device currently handling the voice call should transfer the voice call to another device. For example, illustrated at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
However, Peterson does explicitly teach monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device.
In the same field of endeavor, Poothokaran discloses monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0021] and [ [0031]; Based on determined foreground applications, the system 10 via the control manager 20 and control agent 14 on the OS2 user devices 12 institutes device controls and provides alerts and self-correction guides to supervised users and alerts and reports including activity summaries to supervisory users. Monitoring usage of an application on a second mobile device and transmitting usage information (e.g., report or alert) to another device).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Peterson’s teaching with a feature of monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device as taught by Poothokaran in order to determine how much other user is using particular application, limiting use of such applications, and limiting overall use of other user’s device (paragraph [0002]; Poothokaran).
Regarding claim 12, Peterson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first application and the second application execute on the first mobile device (paragraphs Fig.3, [0029] and [0031]; at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
Regarding claim 13, Peterson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein: the first application utilizes a first wireless technology; and the second application utilizes a second wireless technology different from the first wireless technology (paragraphs [0017]- [0018]; applications running on the user's desktop or laptop computer. For example, VoIP phones can be installed as an application running on a desktop or laptop computer as well as on a smart phone or a tablet computing device).
Regarding claim 14, Peterson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein: the first application is a video call application that utilizes at least one of a voice over internet protocol (VOIP) connection, a cellular connection, or a Wi-Fi connection; and the second application is an incoming call that utilizes at least one of the VOIP connection, the cellular connection, or the Wi-Fi connection (paragraphs [0017] and [0018]; VoIP phones can be installed as an application running on a desktop or laptop computer as well as on a smart phone or a tablet computing device).
Regarding claim 17, Peterson discloses a system, comprising: a communication interface to wirelessly link connected devices that include a first mobile device linked to a second mobile device (Fig.1 and Fig.2); and an application streaming controller configured to share one or more applications of the first mobile device with one or more mobile devices that include the second mobile device, the application streaming controller implemented at least partially in computer hardware to (Fig.1 and Fig.2): detect an event associated with a first application on the first mobile device (paragraph [0031]; a first device is employed in a voice call); transmit an interface generated by a second application installed on the first mobile device to the second mobile device based on the event associated with the first application and a request to use the second application on the first mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone); and receive, from the second mobile device, information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0031] and [0036]; if a first device is employed in a voice call, e.g., if a voice call is received at a first device at 301, a user may wish to answer the voice call, or at some point transfer the voice call, to another device, e.g., a second device such as a smart phone or tablet. Thus, an embodiment determines if a transfer requirement exists, e.g., data that dictates that the device currently handling the voice call should transfer the voice call to another device. For example, illustrated at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
However, Peterson does explicitly teach monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device.
In the same field of endeavor, Poothokaran discloses monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device (paragraphs [0021] and [ [0031]; Based on determined foreground applications, the system 10 via the control manager 20 and control agent 14 on the OS2 user devices 12 institutes device controls and provides alerts and self-correction guides to supervised users and alerts and reports including activity summaries to supervisory users. Monitoring usage of an application on a second mobile device and transmitting usage information (e.g., report or alert) to another device).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Peterson’s teaching with a feature of monitoring information associated with use of the second application on the second mobile device as taught by Poothokaran in order to determine how much other user is using particular application, limiting use of such applications, and limiting overall use of other user’s device (paragraph [0002]; Poothokaran).
Regarding claim 18, Peterson discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the first application and the second application execute on the first mobile device (paragraphs Fig.3, [0029] and [0031]; at 302, a determination may be made as to whether a second device has requested that the voice call be transferred to the second device. In an embodiment, the software phone application running on the first device, such as a laptop computing device, may detect a transfer request communicated by the software phone application running on the second device, such as a smart phone).
Regarding claim 19, Peterson discloses the system of claim 17, wherein: the first application utilizes a first wireless technology; and the second application utilizes a second wireless technology different from the first wireless technology (paragraphs [0017]- [0018]; applications running on the user's desktop or laptop computer. For example, VoIP phones can be installed as an application running on a desktop or laptop computer as well as on a smart phone or a tablet computing device).
Regarding claim 20, Peterson discloses the system of claim 17, wherein: the first application is a video call application that utilizes at least one of a voice over internet protocol (VOIP) connection, a cellular connection, or a Wi-Fi connection; and the second application is an incoming call that utilizes at least one of the VOIP connection, the cellular connection, or the Wi-Fi connection (paragraphs [0017] and [0018]; VoIP phones can be installed as an application running on a desktop or laptop computer as well as on a smart phone or a tablet computing device).
Regarding claim 21, Peterson discloses the system of claim 17, wherein:
the first application is a video call application that utilizes at least one of a voice over internet protocol (VOIP) connection, a cellular connection, or a Wi-Fi connection; and the second application is an incoming call that utilizes at least one of the VOIP connection, the cellular connection, or the Wi-Fi connection (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]; many phone devices that are moving to VoIP services implemented on smart devices, it is possible to get more functionality out of a phone system. Many office desk phones are now implemented as applications running on the user's desktop or laptop computer. For example, VoIP phones can be installed as an application running on a desktop or laptop computer as well as on a smart phone or a tablet computing device).
Regarding claim 22, Peterson discloses the first mobile device of claim 1, wherein the interface generated by the second application is transmitted to the second mobile device in response to receiving user input indicating an initiation of an application transfer (paragraphs [0018] and [0029]; permits the user to get up, and without manually inputting data to transfer the call, transfer the call to a mobile device running the same or a similar phone application. Based on the fact that the phone application is installed on both devices, the devices can coordinate the receiving of the call in an intuitive way. In an embodiment, the transfer may occur before or after the call is picked up or accepted at the first device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 17-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Pub. No. 2012/0289213 A1 to Levien et al. discloses a communication system includes logic to detect a second communication device in proximity to a first communication device engaged in a call, and to provide a substantially uninterrupted transfer of selected parties to the call to the second communication device. A proximate device may be identified as one capable of rendering a particular data type, and a substantially uninterrupted transfer may be performed to the proximate device of data of the communications having the data type. An application associated with communication data may be identified, as well as a proximate device capable of providing the application, and a substantially uninterrupted transfer may be performed to the proximate device of data associated with the application (Abstract and paragraph [0114]).
U.S Pub. No. 2023/0409194 A1 to FLEIZACH et al. discloses a first electronic device that operates in a remote interaction mode with a second electronic device, where user interactions with images displayed on the first electronic device cause the second electronic device to update display of the images and/or corresponding user interfaces on the second electronic device (Abstract).
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 AKELAW A TESHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-5302. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached at (571) 272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AKELAW TESHALE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/AKELAW TESHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights