CTNF 18/393,844 CTNF 86152 DETAILED ACTION Authorization for Internet Communications The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03): “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439). Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns 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 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China 6/23/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2315387.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Thus applicant has not perfected priority and effective filing date of application is 6/22/2022. Claim Objections 07-05-06 Claims 5-7, 12, 14, 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-4, 11, 13, and 15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim s 11-16 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The following claims refer back to an independent claim but do not appear to further limit the claim . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-5, 7-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vane (U.S. PG PUB 2020/0110643) . Regarding claim 1, Vane teaches a service process invoking method, comprising: obtaining, by an application process, a context of a binder process (see ¶[0126] “The Android operating system may also provide a driver that facilitates and enables inter-process communication (IPC) between processes, including between frameworks and the HAL. This IPC driver may be referred to as “binder”. The binder driver manages traffic between processes by using binder contexts”); obtaining, by the application process, a handle of a service process based on the context of the binder process (see ¶[0310] “As noted, the above-described modules can interact with message handler 1542. Message handler 1542 generally serves to interact with a master service of the wearable computing device 1510 and one or more microservices provided by remote computing devices 1580a to 1580d. Message handler 1542 can consolidate messages received from each of the local modules and handle delivery to the appropriate cloud microservice, e.g., via the gateway service of remote computing device 1580b. Similarly, message handler 1542 can receive consolidated messages from cloud microservices, e.g., via the gateway service of remote computing device 1580b and deliver the individual messages to the appropriate local module for further processing.”); running, by the application process, a program of the binder process based on the context of the binder process, to obtain a context of the service process based on the handle of the service process (see ¶[0310] “As noted, the above-described modules can interact with message handler 1542. Message handler 1542 generally serves to interact with a master service of the wearable computing device 1510 and one or more microservices provided by remote computing devices 1580a to 1580d.”); and running, by the application process, a program of the service process based on the context of the service process (see ¶[0132] ”In response to a connection attempt, the processor creates an inter-process communication context specific to the requesting application or service, and the requested HAL interface (which corresponds to a physical device).” ), to respond to a binder request, of the application process, requesting a system service provided by the service process (see ¶[0189] “The wearable computing device receives the request at 818 and transmits a services list to the host computing device in response”). Because Vane discloses multiple embodiments and implementations, and all the findings may be disclosed in different embodiments/implementations, obviousness rejection is made. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would be able to combine different embodiments adjacent to each other in the prior art and does not require a leap of inventiveness. Vane discloses that these embodiments/implementations are used in order to manage traffic between processes (see ¶[0126] of Vane). Regarding claim 3, Vane teaches wherein the obtaining, by the application process, a handle of a service process based on the context of the binder process comprises: running, by the application process, the program of the binder process based on the context of the binder process, to obtain a handle of a service manager process (see ¶ [0317] “Local message handler can relay data to and from application programs 1511 or at least one local system service 1512. Local system services 1512 may be, for example, a weather service, calendar service, navigation service, maps service, configuration service, or other service. At least some local system services 1512 may have counterpart microservices provided by a remote computing device 1580. For example, the system weather service may query a weather microservice provided by a remote computing device 1580 for weather updates. The query may be transmitted, and response received, via the host computing device, as described herein.”); obtaining, by the application process, a context of the service manager process based on the handle of the service manager process (see ¶[0302] “In some implementations, socket module 1544 may be used to handle protocol encapsulation and de-encapsulation, for example by using the companion service libraries described herein. In some cases, socket module 1544 may implement a host routing service, such as host routing service 755.”); and running, by the application process, a program of the service manager process based on the context of the service manager process, to obtain the handle of the service process based on an identifier of a system service requested by the application process (see ¶[0221] “When encapsulating, each packet may be associated with a connection identifier, which can be unique for each discrete socket that is accessing the physical channel. In this way, packets can be transmitted and received for multiple discrete sockets concurrently, while still being delivered over a single physical channel.”). Regarding claim 4, Vane teaches wherein the running, by the application process, the program of the binder process based on the context of the binder process, to obtain a handle of a service manager process comprises: running, by the application process, the program of the binder process based on the context of the binder process, to obtain the handle of the service manager process from a memory of the binder process (see ¶[0127] “In the Android operating system, the default IPC binder architecture incurs delays as data being relayed between processes may be copied in memory several times by binder.”). Regarding claim 5, is an independent method claim, corresponding with claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 7-8, are method claims corresponding with claims 3-4 above, and are rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 9, Vane teaches wherein before the running, by the application process in the processor, a program of the service manager process based on the context of the service manager process, to obtain the handle of the service process based on an identifier of a system service requested by the application process, the method further comprises: obtaining, by the service process in the processor, the context of the binder process (see ¶[0126] “The Android operating system may also provide a driver that facilitates and enables inter-process communication (IPC) between processes, including between frameworks and the HAL. This IPC driver may be referred to as “binder”. The binder driver manages traffic between processes by using binder contexts”); obtaining, by the service process in the processor, the handle of the service manager process based on the context of the binder process (see ¶[0310] “As noted, the above-described modules can interact with message handler 1542. Message handler 1542 generally serves to interact with a master service of the wearable computing device 1510 and one or more microservices provided by remote computing devices 1580a to 1580d. Message handler 1542 can consolidate messages received from each of the local modules and handle delivery to the appropriate cloud microservice, e.g., via the gateway service of remote computing device 1580b. Similarly, message handler 1542 can receive consolidated messages from cloud microservices, e.g., via the gateway service of remote computing device 1580b and deliver the individual messages to the appropriate local module for further processing.”); running, by the service process in the processor, the program of the binder process based on the context of the binder process, to obtain the context of the service manager process based on the handle of the service manager process (see ¶[0310] “As noted, the above-described modules can interact with message handler 1542. Message handler 1542 generally serves to interact with a master service of the wearable computing device 1510 and one or more microservices provided by remote computing devices 1580a to 1580d.”); running, by the service process in the processor, the program of the service manager process based on the context of the service manager process (see ¶[0132] ”In response to a connection attempt, the processor creates an inter-process communication context specific to the requesting application or service, and the requested HAL interface (which corresponds to a physical device).” ), to respond to a binder request, of the application process, requesting a system service provided by the service process (see ¶[0189] “The wearable computing device receives the request at 818 and transmits a services list to the host computing device in response”), to store, in an associated manner, an identifier of a system service provided by the service process and the handle of the service process in a memory of the service manager process (see ¶[0158] “Generally, host routing service 755 may implement a host data communications endpoint by calling functions from the companion service library to handle data routing to or from the host device. As noted above, a corresponding companion service library may also be used by the client data communications endpoint in application 724 or proxy service 726. A data routing service 730 of wearable computing device 710 may also make use of the companion service library.”); and the running, by the application process in the processor, a program of the service manager process based on the context of the service manager process (see ¶ [0317] “Local message handler can relay data to and from application programs 1511 or at least one local system service 1512. Local system services 1512 may be, for example, a weather service, calendar service, navigation service, maps service, configuration service, or other service. At least some local system services 1512 may have counterpart microservices provided by a remote computing device 1580. For example, the system weather service may query a weather microservice provided by a remote computing device 1580 for weather updates. The query may be transmitted, and response received, via the host computing device, as described herein.”), to obtain the handle of the service process based on an identifier of a system service requested by the application process (see ¶[0302] “In some implementations, socket module 1544 may be used to handle protocol encapsulation and de-encapsulation, for example by using the companion service libraries described herein. In some cases, socket module 1544 may implement a host routing service, such as host routing service 755.”) comprises: running, by the application process in the processor, a program of the service manager process based on the context of the service manager process (see ¶ [0317] “Local message handler can relay data to and from application programs 1511 or at least one local system service 1512. Local system services 1512 may be, for example, a weather service, calendar service, navigation service, maps service, configuration service, or other service. At least some local system services 1512 may have counterpart microservices provided by a remote computing device 1580. For example, the system weather service may query a weather microservice provided by a remote computing device 1580 for weather updates. The query may be transmitted, and response received, via the host computing device, as described herein.”), to obtain, from the memory of the service manager process, the handle of the service process based on the identifier of the system service requested by the application process (see ¶[0127] “In the Android operating system, the default IPC binder architecture incurs delays as data being relayed between processes may be copied in memory several times by binder.”). Regarding claim 10, Vane teaches wherein the running, by the service process in the processor, the program of the binder process based on the context of the binder process, to obtain a handle of a service manager process comprises: running, by the service process in the processor, the program of the binder process based on the context of the binder process, to obtain the handle of the service manager process from a memory of the binder process (see ¶[0127] “In the Android operating system, the default IPC binder architecture incurs delays as data being relayed between processes may be copied in memory several times by binder.”). Regarding claim 11, is an electric device claim, corresponding with claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Vane teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the processor invokes, by using an application process, a computer program stored in the memory (see ¶[0008]). Regarding claim 12, is an electric device claim, corresponding with claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Vane teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the processor invokes, by using an application process in a processor, a computer program stored in the memory (see ¶[0008]). Regarding claim 13, is a medium claim, corresponding with claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Vane teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions (see ¶[0060]). Regarding claim 14, is a medium claim, corresponding with claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Vane teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions (see ¶[0060]). Regarding claim 15, is computer program product, corresponding with claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Vane teaches instructions, wherein when the computer program product is run on an electronic device (see ¶[0062]). Regarding claim 16, is computer program product, corresponding with claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Vane teaches instructions, wherein when the computer program product is run on an electronic device (see ¶[0062]). Regarding claim 17, is a system claim, corresponding with claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Vane teaches at least one processor and at least one interface circuit (see ¶[0061]); each configured to read and instructions stored in a memory, and send the instructions to the at least one processor (see ¶[0062]). Regarding claim 19-20, are system claims corresponding with claims 3-4 above, and are rejected for the same reasons . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vane (U.S. PG PUB 2020/0110643) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Salehpour (U.S. Patent 9,509,697) . Regarding claim 2, Vane does not expressly disclose, however Salehpour teaches wherein the obtaining, by an application process, a context of a binder process comprises: obtaining, by the application process, the context of the binder process from a call stack (see col. 8, lines 57-67, “In some examples, inspection module 108 may use a call stack to identify one or more methods that initiated a call to a shared library by iterating through the stack frames of the call stack. Using FIG. 5 as an example, inspection module 108 may use call stack 210 to identify methods 534-540 that initiated a call to API method 214 of shared library 212 by iterating through stack frames 514-520. On some platforms (e.g., the ANDROID platform), the inspection module 108 may be able to identify the method name, class name, and/or package name associated with the method represented by a stack frame”). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Vane by adapting Salehpour store a record of methods called at the run time of a process and the order in which the methods were called (see col. 7, lines 39-45 of Salehpour). Regarding claim 6, is a method claim corresponding to claim 2 above, and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 18, is a system claim corresponding to claim 2 above, and is rejected for the same reasons . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2019/0155618) teaches acquiring, by a processing device for implementing automatic startup, at least one of program startup information and startup call information of an application when it is detected that a startup event for the application occurs; sending, by the processing device for implementing automatic startup, the at least one of the program startup information and the startup call information to a server for acquiring a determination strategy for the application serving as a startup control strategy for the application, wherein the determination strategy is obtained by the server through analyzing the at least one of the program startup information and the startup call information; controlling, by the processing device for implementing automatic startup, startup of the application according to the startup control strategy for the application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (EST). 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 call. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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. Carina Yun Patent Examiner Art Unit 2194 /CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/393,844 Page 2 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/393,844 Page 3 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/393,844 Page 4 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/393,844 Page 5 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/393,844 Page 6 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/393,844 Page 7 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/393,844 Page 8 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/393,844 Page 9 Art Unit: 2194
Prosecution Insights