DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/8/2025 has been entered.
Claim status in the amendment received on 12/08/2025:
Claims 1-2, 8, 13-14, 16 and 18-19 have been amended.
Claim 7 is canceled.
New claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11 and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200143333 A1) in view of Frost (Pub. No.: US 20180373568 A1).
As to claim 1, Gonzalez teaches a system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (paragraph [0019]);
a network interface (paragraph [0019]); and
at least one hardware processor interoperably coupled with the network interface and the at least one memory (paragraph [0019]), wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one hardware processor causes performance of operations comprising:
initializing an application-based process on a first device associated with a user (paragraph [0037], “…opening an application on the computer device…”);
receiving instructions to transfer the application-based process from the first device to a second device associated with the user (paragraph [0039], “…selecting an option to transfer the session from the computer device 2110 to the mobile device 2115…”), wherein the application-based process at the first device is in a first state (paragraph [0040], “…Details of the session may include information already entered into the application open on the computer device …”);
initiating a secure transfer process from the first device to the second device (paragraph [0044], “…transferring the session from the computer device 2110 to the mobile device 2115…”);
authenticating the user at the second device (paragraph [0044], “…Operation 2230 may also include an authentication step where the user of the mobile device 2115 authenticates with the application server 2105 in the same manner as described above with respect to authenticating the computer device 2110 to the application server 2105 (e.g., with a username and password) …”);
in response to authenticating the user at the second device, initializing the application-based process at the second device in the first state (paragraph [0042], “… the mobile device 2115 retrieves the session details stored in operation 2215 and begins a web-browser session to continue using the selected application from operation 2205 on the mobile device 2115…”), enabling concurrent sessions of the application-based process at the first device and the second device (paragraph [0048], “…the system enables both the computer device 2110 and the mobile device 2115 to continue operating the application in parallel…”); and
receiving at least one action or input associated with the application-based process from the user at the second device, the at least one action or input moving the application-based process to a second state (paragraph [0048], “… The application server 2105 may track second updates made to the application at the mobile device 2115 subsequent to transfer of the session…”).
Gonzalez does not explicitly teach transferring the process automatically based on determining that the first device is without a functionality and validating that the second device is one of a set of trusted devises of the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor (accessing online content) Frost teaches
instructions to transfer the application-based process from the first device to the second device being automatically generated by the application-based process based on a determination that the first device is without a set of functionality associated with a particular operation in the application-based process (paragraph [0026], “…the first application 625 may detect that the first device 620 lacks the capability to perform the requested task and/or a next task…” and paragraph [0026]);
validating that the second device is among a set of trusted devices associated with the user (paragraph [0080], “…For example, the user may designate (e.g., via a user interface displayed on device 620) a favorite device ranking including a personal computer ranked first, followed by a tablet, followed by a mobile phone…”).
Based on Gonzalez in view of Frost, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate transferring the process automatically based on determining that the first device is without a functionality and validating that the second device is one of a set of trusted devises of the user (taught by Frost) with transferring application process between user’s devices (taught by Gonzales) in order to provide the user with an interrupted workflow performance and to improve network security.
As to claim 2, Gonzales teaches wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one hardware processor causes performance of operations comprising:
receiving instructions to transfer the application-based process from the second device to a third device associated with the user, wherein the application-based process at the second device is in a third state (paragraph [0046], “…In the event that it is desired to transfer the session between the mobile device 2115 back to the computer device 2110 or to another device, then the method of FIG. 21 is carried out again except that the method treats the mobile device 2115 as the computer device 2110 and the computer device 2110 (or other device) as the mobile device 2115…”);
initiating a secure transfer process from the second device to the third device (paragraph [0044], “…transferring the session from the computer device 2110 to the mobile device 2115…”);
authenticating the user at the third device (paragraph [0044], “… (e.g., with a username and password) …”); and
in response to authenticating the user at the third device, initializing the application-based process at the third device in the third state (paragraph [0042], “… the mobile device 2115 retrieves the session details stored in operation 2215 and begins a web-browser session to continue using the selected application from operation 2205 on the mobile device 2115…”).
As to claim 3, Gonzales teaches wherein the third device is different than the first device (paragraph [0046], “…In the event that it is desired to transfer the session between the mobile device 2115 back to the computer device 2110 or to another device, then the method of FIG. 21 is carried out again except that the method treats the mobile device 2115 as the computer device 2110 and the computer device 2110 (or other device) as the mobile device 2115…”).
As to claim 4, Gonzales teaches wherein the first device is a desktop computer and the second device is a smartphone (paragraph [0008], “an initial session may be started on a normally stationary client device (e.g., a desktop computer), but the session is desired to be continued on a mobile client device (e.g., a smartphone)…”).
As to claim 5, Gonzales teaches wherein the first device is a smartphone and the second device is a desktop computer (paragraph [0046], “…In the event that it is desired to transfer the session between the mobile device 2115 back to the computer device 2110 …”).
As to claim 6, Gonzales teaches wherein the instructions to transfer the application-based process from the first device to a second device associated with the user are received from a user interface interaction of the user at the first device (paragraph [0039], “…selecting an option to transfer the session from the computer device 2110 to the mobile device 2115. The selection may be made by a user of the computer device 2110 within the application …”).
As to claim 8, Frost further teaches wherein the particular operation requires camera functionality, wherein the first device does not include camera functionality, and wherein the second device does include camera functionality (paragraph [0046], “… (e.g., “Your device has no camera. Would you like to capture the image on another device?”) …”). The limitations of claim 8 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 1 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
As to claim 9, Gonzalez teaches wherein, after the secure transfer process from the first device to the second device and the initialization of the application-based process at the second state, the application-based process remains active at the first device (paragraph [0046], “… both the computer device 2110 and the mobile device 2115 may communicate with the application server 2105 to ensure all information input into the application at either device 2110/2115 is up to date on both devices 2110/2115 …”).
As to claim 10, Gonzales teaches wherein execution of the instructions by the at least one hardware processor causes performance of operations comprising: in response to receiving the at least one action or input associated with the application-based process from the user at the second device moving the application-based process to the second state, updating the state of the application-based process at the first device to the same second state as the state of the application-based process at the second device (paragraph [0046], “… both the computer device 2110 and the mobile device 2115 may communicate with the application server 2105 to ensure all information input into the application at either device 2110/2115 is up to date on both devices 2110/2115 …”).
As to claim 11, Gonzales teaches wherein initiating the secure transfer process from the first device to the second device comprises:
presenting, at the first device, a scannable code, wherein when the scannable code is scanned by the second device, the second device transmits a request to access the application- based process (paragraph [0042], “…generating and displaying (e.g., by the computer device 2110) a scannable code on a display of the computer device 2110…”); and
in response to receiving an indication from that the scannable code has been scanned by the second device, initializing the application-based process at the second device (paragraphs [0043]-[0044], “…scanning the scannable code with the mobile device…”).
As to claim 13, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claims 14-15, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar or broader in scope to claims 2-3, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
As to claim 16, Frost further teaches wherein the instructions to transfer the application based process from the first device to a second device associated with the user are automatically generated by the application based process based on a determination that the first device is without a set of functionality associated with a particular operation in the application based process, wherein the particular operation requires camera functionality, wherein the first device does not include camera functionality, and wherein the second device does include camera functionality (paragraph [0046], “… (e.g., “Your device has no camera. Would you like to capture the image on another device?”) …”). The limitations of claim 16 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 13 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 13, applies here as well.
As to claim 17, Gonzalez teaches after the secure transfer process from the first device to the second device and the initialization of the application-based process at the second state, the application-based process remains active at the first device, and the operations further comprising: in response to receiving the at least one action or input associated with the application-based process from the user at the second device moving the application-based process to the second state, updating the state of the application-based process at the first device to the same second state as the state of the application-based process at the second device (paragraph [0046], “… both the computer device 2110 and the mobile device 2115 may communicate with the application server 2105 to ensure all information input into the application at either device 2110/2115 is up to date on both devices 2110/2115 …”).
As to claim 18, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claim 19, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 2. Please refer to claim 2 above.
As to claim 20, Gonzalez teaches after the secure transfer process from the first device to the second device and the initialization of the application-based process at the second state, the application-based process remains active at the first device, and method further comprising: in response to receiving the at least one action or input associated with the application-based process from the user at the second device moving the application-based process to the second state, updating the state of the application-based process at the first device to the same second state as the state of the application-based process at the second device (paragraph [0046], “… both the computer device 2110 and the mobile device 2115 may communicate with the application server 2105 to ensure all information input into the application at either device 2110/2115 is up to date on both devices 2110/2115 …”).
As to claim 21, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 11. Please refer to claim 11 above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200143333 A1) in view of Frost (Pub. No.: US 20180373568 A1) and further in view of Al-Shaykh et al. (Pub. No.: US 20110131520 A1).
As to claim 12, Gonzalez teaches wherein receiving instructions to transfer the application-based process from the first device to a second device associated with the user comprises: identifying a list of at least one trusted device associated with the user other than the first device (paragraph [0039], i.e. identifying the mobile device);
in response to receiving the instructions to transfer the application-based process, transmitting a notification to the second device to transfer the application-based process from the first device to the second device (paragraph [0045], “…when the mobile device 2115 opens the URL (in response to the user's selection of the prompt in operation 2230 or in response to operation 2225 if operation 2230 is omitted), the mobile device 2115 retrieves the session details stored in operation 2215 and begins a web-browser session to continue using the selected application from operation 2205 on the mobile device 2115…”).
Gonzales in view of Frost does not explicitly teach receiving a selection from a presented list of devices to transfer the application process.
However, in the same field of endeavor (transfer process between devices) Al-Shaykh teaches presenting, at a user interface of the first device, a list of at least one trusted device associated with the user other than the first device (paragraph [0133], “…display a list 77 of available rendering devices…”);
receiving an indication of a selection of a particular one of the at least one trusted devices as the second device (paragraph [0133], “…the list 77 may enable the user 12 to select a new target rendering device from the available rendering devices…”); and
in response to receiving the indication of the selection of the particular one of the at least one trusted devices as the second device, transfer the application-based process from the first device to the second device (paragraph [0154], “… enable the transfer of the media content 15 to the target rendering device…”).
Based on Gonzales in view of Frost and further in view of Al-Shaykh, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate receiving a selection from a presented list of devices to transfer the application process (taught by Al-Shaykh) with transferring the process automatically based on determining that the first device is without a functionality and validating that the second device is one of a set of trusted devises of the user (taught by Frost) with transferring application process between user’s devices (taught by Gonzales) in order to provide the user with an interrupted workflow performance and to improve network security, and in order to enable the user to choose a preferred device for transferring the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, 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 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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 1/29/2026