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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 [line 3] recites: “receiving, from second user device”. Examiner suggests amending to recite “receiving, from a second user device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
A method performed by a first user device, the method comprising: receiving, from a second user device, a message comprising an indication of one or more settings associated with an application executable by the first user device;
identifying, by the first user device, the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device;
and configuring the application based on the one or more settings.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of "Identifying", as drafted in #2 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "by a first user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "receiving" limitations in #1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receiving, from a second device, a message" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "configuring" limitation in #3 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "configuring" in the context of this claim encompasses merely applying setting configuration to an application. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a first user device,
a second user device
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #1 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 2 and 13 recite(s):
further comprising: transmitting a request for the indication of the one or more settings,
wherein receiving the [SMS-based] message is based on transmitting the request.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 2 is a method
Yes. Claim 13 is a manufacture
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "transmitting" limitations in #4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "transmitting a request" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "receiving" limitations in #5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receiving the message" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #4-5 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 3 recite(s):
wherein the message comprises one or more of: a short message service (SMS)-based message, or a multimedia messaging service (MMS)-based message
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 3 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitation in #6 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "message comprises" in the context of this claim encompasses merely the format the message data is sent. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 recite(s):
establishing a decoding key associated with the message;
and decoding, before configuring the application, the message using the decoding key [associated with the security key].
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 4 is a method
Yes. Claim 14 is a manufacture
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of "decoding" and "establishing a decoding key", as drafted in #7-8 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a first user device" or "a second user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 5 recite(s):
further comprising one or more of: verifying that the message is from the second user device,
decoding the message;
extracting a public key from the message;
extracting the indication of the one or more settings;
or decrypting the message using the public key.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes Claim 5 is a method
Yes. Claim 15 is a manufacture
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of "verify", as drafted in #9 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a first user device" or "a second user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
The limitation of "decoding", as drafted in #10 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a first user device" or "a second user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
The limitation of "extracting", as drafted in #11-12 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a first user device" or "a second user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
The limitation of "decrypting", as drafted in #13 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a first user device" or "a second user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 recite(s):
wherein the indication comprises one or more of: an indication of a webpage that indicates the one or more settings,
an encoded indication of the one or more settings,
or an encrypted indication of the one or more settings.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 6 is a method
Yes. Claim 17 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitation in #14-16 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "the indication comprises" in the context of this claim encompasses merely the format the data is stored. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 recite(s):
receiving user input to install the application;
and installing the application before configuring the application based on the one or more settings.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 7 is a method
Yes. Claim 18 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "installing" limitation in #18 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "installing" in the context of this claim encompasses merely running an executable to install an application. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
The "receiving" limitations in #17 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receiving" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #17 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 8 recite(s):
wherein the one or more settings comprise one or more of security settings, privacy settings, font size settings, color settings, brightness settings, accessibility settings, or content settings.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 8 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitations in #19 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "settings comprise" in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing data . See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #19 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 9 and 19 recite(s):
wherein the one or more settings comprise non- secure application settings
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 9 is a method
Yes. Claim 19 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitation in #20 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "settings comprise" in the context of this claim encompasses merely data containing non-encrypted configuration. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 recite(s):
wherein receiving the message comprises one or more of: receiving the message via a server device;
or receiving the message via a direct communication link with the second user device
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 10 is a method
Yes. Claim 20 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitations in #21-22 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receiving" in the context of this claim encompasses "mere data transmission". See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a server device,
a second user device
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #21-22 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 12 recite(s):
A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to receive, at a first user device and from a second user device, a short message service (SMS)-based message comprising an indication of one or more settings associated with an application executable by the first user device,
the SMS-based message being secured using a security key associated with the second user device;
and program instructions to identify the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device;
and program instructions to configure the application based on the one or more settings.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 12 is a manufacture
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of “Identify”, as drafted in #26 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a first user device" or "second user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person.
The limitation of “SMS-based message being secured”, as drafted in #25 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a first user device" or "second user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitation in #27 and #23 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "configure" or "instructions comprise" in the context of these claims encompasses merely changing the configuration of an application. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
The "receive" limitations in #24 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receive" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a first user device,
second user device,
computer readable storage media
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #24 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 16 recite(s):
receive, at a first user device and from a second user device, a message comprising an indication of one or more settings associated with an application executable by the first user device, wherein the message comprises a hash of the one or more settings that is signed with a private key associated with the second user device;
validate that the message is associated with the second user device by identifying the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device;
and configure, at the first user device, the application based on the one or more settings.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 16 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of "validate", as drafted in #29 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "the first user device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "configure" limitation in #30 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "configure" in the context of this claim encompasses merely applying configuration settings to an application. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
The "receive" limitations in #28 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receive" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a system,
a first user device,
a second user device
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #28 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20160197773 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Pandrangi) in view of US 10506092 B1 (Hereinafter referred to as Stephenson).
With regards to claim 1, Pandrangi teaches:
A method performed by a first user device, the method comprising: receiving, from a second user device, a message comprising an indication of one or more settings associated with an application executable by the first user device (Para.[5], Pandrangi shows “a user (first user) request to share an application and/or its current configuration settings with another user (second user)”);
and configuring the application based on the one or more settings (Para. [7], Pandrangi shows “the configuration data to be applied to the application on the computing device of the second user”).
Pandrangi does not explicitly disclose:
identifying, by the first user device, the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device;
However, in the analogous art of passenger operation networks, Stephenson teaches:
identifying, by the first user device, the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device (Col. [4] line [66] - Col, [5] line [4], Stephenson shows "Passenger operation network system 100 can comprise a vehicle 110, a driver device 120 (first client device), and at least one second client device 130-1 and 130-2 (collectively 130) (passenger device). The first client device and other client devices can establish one or more additional passenger operation networks 150-1, 150-2, 150-3 (collectively 150)." Col. [6] lines [54-65], Stephenson shows "In some embodiments, establishing the passenger operation network 150 comprises receiving input (e.g., a trust token, device identifier, etc.) indicating the second client device 130 is a trusted device. In some embodiments, a permission list (e.g., contacts list, social media connections list, trusted devices list, etc.) can indicate the second client device 130 is a trusted device. The permission list can indicate a subset of allowable first client operations for the second client device 130 to instruct (e.g., allow, based on the permission list, the second client device 130 access to media controls, but ignore instructions relating to all other first client operations).");
Therefore, 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 teachings of Stephenson into the teachings of Pandrangi to implement “identifying, by the first user device, the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify trusted devices without the need for a passkey or other trust token (Stephenson, Col. [11] lines [30-35]).
With regards to claim 2, Pandrangi as modified teaches:
transmitting a request for the indication of the one or more settings, wherein receiving the message is based on transmitting the request (Para.[5], Pandrangi shows “a user (first user) request to share an application and/or its current configuration settings with another user (second user)”).
Regarding claim 3, Pandrangi as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
wherein the message comprises one or more of: a short message service (SMS)-based message, or a multimedia messaging service (MMS)-based message
However, in the analogous art of passenger operation networks, Stephenson teaches:
wherein the message comprises one or more of: a short message service (SMS)-based message, or a multimedia messaging service (MMS)-based message (Col. [7] lines [29-49], Stephenson shows "In some embodiments, the at least one instruction from the second client device 130 can include at least one data element (e.g., email recipient address, email subject line, email body, email attachments; SMS message recipient phone number, SMS message, SMS message attachments; social media platform identifier, social media status update, attachment to be uploaded to social media account; etc.). Executing the at least one instruction can further comprise performing the at least one instruction with the at least one data element (e.g., sending the email from an email account associated with the driver device 120 with the received data elements). Additionally, in some embodiments, the driver device 120 can forward received messages (e.g., emails, SMS messages, voicemails, etc.) and notifications to the second client device 130. The second client device 130 can access the forwarded content and reply to the message or notification with the at least one instruction including data elements. Based on the at least one instruction the driver device 120 can execute the at least one instruction with the included data elements (e.g., send a reply email or SMS message).")
Therefore, 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 teachings of Stephenson into the teachings of Pandrangi as modified to implement “wherein the message comprises one or more of: a short message service (SMS)-based message, or a multimedia messaging service (MMS)-based message”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use SMS as a medium to send executable instructions through phones (Stephenson, Col. [12] lines [22-64]).
With regards to claim 7, Pandrangi teaches:
receiving user input to install the application; and installing the application before configuring the application based on the one or more settings (Para. [7], Pandrangi shows “the application sharing system can receive an acknowledgement from the computing device associated with the second user whether the second user has accepted or denied the user request by the first user. In the event where the second user accepts the user request, the application can be downloaded to the computing device of the second user if the computing device does not have the application installed already, and the configuration data can also be downloaded to the computing device of the second user”).
With regards to claim 8, Pandrangi teaches:
wherein the one or more settings comprise one or more of: security settings, privacy settings, font size settings, color settings, brightness settings, accessibility settings, or content settings (Para. [34], Pandrangi shows “examples of configuration data include without restriction, configuration settings pertaining to various display features including font type, size, color… etc.”).
With regards to claim 9, Pandrangi teaches:
wherein the one or more settings comprise non-secure application settings (Para. [34], Pandrangi shows “examples of configuration data include without restriction, configuration settings pertaining to various display features including font type, size, color… etc.” Examiner notes the above citation shows settings which do not indicate a user’s private or secure settings).
With regards to claim 11, Pandrangi teaches:
receiving, from the second user device, an additional message comprising an additional indication of an update to the one or more settings (Para. [48], Pandrangi shows “the configuration data, including changes to the configuration data, may be stored locally by device 114 and managed by application 114. In embodiments where changes to an application's configuration data are also stored and tracked by application sharing system 104, information may be conveyed from device 110 to application sharing system 104 regarding the changes. In one embodiment, application 114 may be configured to send a notification to application sharing system 104 indicative of the configuration settings changes. Application sharing system 104 may then update the configuration data stored for application 114 for User_1. In this manner, application sharing system 104 keeps track of users' downloading of applications and also of changes made to the configuration settings for the various applications” Para. [50], Pandrangi shows “At 202, application sharing system 104 receives a request from a first user indicative of a desire by the first user to share a particular application on a first computing device with a second user. For example, application sharing system 104 in FIG. 1 may receive a request 114 from device 110 of User_1 indicative of a desire by User_1 to refer or share application 114 on device 110 with User_2. In one embodiment, User_1 may perform an action on device 110 that causes the request (share or referral request) to be generated on device 110 and communicated to application sharing system 104.” Examiner notes the above citation shows the request originating from a first computing device from a first user and being received by a device from a second user).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160197773 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Pandrangi) ) in view of US 10506092 B1 (Hereinafter referred to as Stephenson) in further view of US 6678821 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Waugh et Al.).
With regards to claim 4, Pandrangi teaches the method of claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
establishing a decoding key associated with the message; and decoding, before configuring the application, the message using the decoding key.
However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in data security, Waugh et Al. teaches:
establishing a decoding key associated with the message; and decoding, before configuring the application, the message using the decoding key. (Abstract, Waugh et Al shows an encryption / decryption system for providing restricted use of each key in a plurality of keys to preserve confidentiality of the plurality of keys);
Therefore, 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 teachings of Waugh et Al. into the teachings of Pandrangi as modified to implement the setting sharing between two or more devices of Pandrangi with the message encryption/decryption system of Waugh et Al. The modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to guarantee that the message originated from the sender (Waugh et Al. Para. [7]).
With regards to claim 5, Pandrangi teaches the method of claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
verifying that the message is from the second user device, decoding the message; extracting a public key from the message; extracting the indication of the one or more settings; or decrypting the message using the public key.
However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in data security, Waugh et Al. teaches:
verifying that the message is from the second user device, decoding the message; extracting a public key from the message; extracting the indication of the one or more settings; or decrypting the message using the public key. (Abstract, Waugh et Al shows an encryption/decryption system for providing restricted use of each key in a plurality of keys to preserve confidentiality of the plurality of keys);
Therefore, 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 teachings of Waugh et Al. into the teachings of Pandrangi as modified to implement the setting sharing between two or more devices of Pandrangi with the message encryption/decryption system of Waugh et Al. The modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to guarantee that the message originated from the sender (Waugh et Al. Para. [7]).
With regards to claim 6, Pandrangi teaches the method of claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose:
wherein the indication comprises one or more of: an indication of a webpage that indicates the one or more settings, an encoded indication of the one or more settings, or an encrypted indication of the one or more settings.
However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in data security, Waugh et Al. teaches:
wherein the indication comprises one or more of: an indication of a webpage that indicates the one or more settings, an encoded indication of the one or more settings, or an encrypted indication of the one or more settings. (Para. [13], Waugh et Al. shows an encryption / decryption means for encrypting and decrypting data using the plurality of keys when the user authentication means authenticates the prospective user. The encryption / decryption means is operable in a browser on a client computer);
Therefore, 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 teachings of Waugh et Al. into the teachings of Pandrangi as modified to implement the setting sharing between two or more devices of Pandrangi with the message encryption/decryption system of Waugh et Al. The modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to preserve the confidentiality of a transmission between two parties (Waugh et Al. Para. [6]).
With regards to claim 12, Pandrangi teaches:
A computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising (Claim 16, Pandrangi shows a non-transitory computer readable storage memory storing a plurality of instructions that when executed by one or more processors):
program instructions to receive, at a first user device and from a second user device, a short message service (SMS)-based message comprising an indication of one or more settings associated with an application executable by the first user device (Para.[38], Pandrangi shows any network or mechanism that facilitates data communications between one or more client devices such device 110 and 112 with application sharing system 104. In certain embodiments, communication network 106 may also facilitate communication between two or more client devices, such as between client devices 110 and 112. Communication network 106 can be of various types and can include one or more communication networks),
and program instructions to configure the application based on the one or more settings (Para. [7], Pandrangi shows the configuration data can also be downloaded to the computing device of the second user).
Pandrangi does not disclose:
the SMS-based message being secured using a security key associated with the second user device
program instructions to identify the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device; and
However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in data security, Waugh et Al. teaches:
the SMS-based message being secured using a security key associated with the second user device (Para.[7], Waugh et Al shows the "digital signature", calculated by computing the hash function of the message to be sent and then encrypting the digital signature using the private key of the sender);
Additionally, in an analogous art of passenger operation networks, Stephenson teaches:
program instructions to identify the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device; and (Col. [4] line [66] - Col, [5] line [4], Stephenson shows "Passenger operation network system 100 can comprise a vehicle 110, a driver device 120 (first client device), and at least one second client device 130-1 and 130-2 (collectively 130) (passenger device). The first client device and other client devices can establish one or more additional passenger operation networks 150-1, 150-2, 150-3 (collectively 150)." Col. [6] lines [54-65], Stephenson shows "In some embodiments, establishing the passenger operation network 150 comprises receiving input (e.g., a trust token, device identifier, etc.) indicating the second client device 130 is a trusted device. In some embodiments, a permission list (e.g., contacts list, social media connections list, trusted devices list, etc.) can indicate the second client device 130 is a trusted device. The permission list can indicate a subset of allowable first client operations for the second client device 130 to instruct (e.g., allow, based on the permission list, the second client device 130 access to media controls, but ignore instructions relating to all other first client operations).")
Therefore, 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 teachings of Waugh et Al. into the teachings of Pandrangi as modified to implement the communication network between two or more devices of Pandrangi with the message signing and encrypting method of Waugh et Al. The modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to guarantee that the message originated from the sender (Waugh et Al. Para. [7]).
In addition, 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 teachings of Stephenson into the teachings of Pandrangi to implement “program instructions to identify the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify trusted devices without the need for a passkey or other trust token (Stephenson, Col. [11] lines [30-35]).
With regards to claim 13, Pandrangi as modified teaches the computer program product of claim 12 and it is a claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2 above. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 14, Pandrangi as modified teaches the computer program product of claim 12 and it is a claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4 above. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 15, Pandrangi as modified teaches the computer program product of claim 12 and it is a claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5 above. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
With regards to claim 16, Pandrangi teaches:
A system comprising: one or more devices configured to: receive, at a first user device and from a second user device, a message comprising an indication of one or more settings associated with an application executable by the first user device(Para.[6], Pandrangi shows after receiving the user request to share an application and/or its current configuration settings, the application sharing system can send information related to the user request to a computing device associated with the second user),
and configure, at the first user device, the application based on the one or more settings. (Para. [7], Pandrangi shows the application sharing system can then cause the configuration data to be applied to the application on the computing device of the second user)
Pandrangi does not disclose:
wherein the message comprises a hash of the one or more settings that is signed with a private key associated with the second user device;
validate that the message is associated with the second user device
by identifying the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device
However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in data security, Waugh et Al. teaches:
wherein the message comprises a hash of the one or more settings that is signed with a private key associated with the second user device;
validate that the message is associated with the second user device (Para.[7], Waugh et Al shows the "digital signature", calculated by computing the hash function of the message to be sent and then encrypting the digital signature using the private key of the sender);
Additionally, in an analogous art of passenger operation networks, Stephenson teaches:
by identifying the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device (Col. [4] line [66] - Col, [5] line [4], Stephenson shows "Passenger operation network system 100 can comprise a vehicle 110, a driver device 120 (first client device), and at least one second client device 130-1 and 130-2 (collectively 130) (passenger device). The first client device and other client devices can establish one or more additional passenger operation networks 150-1, 150-2, 150-3 (collectively 150)." Col. [6] lines [54-65], Stephenson shows "In some embodiments, establishing the passenger operation network 150 comprises receiving input (e.g., a trust token, device identifier, etc.) indicating the second client device 130 is a trusted device. In some embodiments, a permission list (e.g., contacts list, social media connections list, trusted devices list, etc.) can indicate the second client device 130 is a trusted device. The permission list can indicate a subset of allowable first client operations for the second client device 130 to instruct (e.g., allow, based on the permission list, the second client device 130 access to media controls, but ignore instructions relating to all other first client operations).")
Therefore, 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 teachings of Waugh et Al. into the teachings of Pandrangi as modified to implement the setting sharing between two or more devices of Pandrangi with the message hashing and encrypting method of Waugh et Al. The modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to guarantee that the message originated from the sender (Waugh et Al. Para. [7]).
In addition, 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 teachings of Stephenson into the teachings of Pandrangi to implement “identifying the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify trusted devices without the need for a passkey or other trust token (Stephenson, Col. [11] lines [30-35]).
With regards to claim 17, Pandrangi as modified teaches the system of claim 16 and it is a claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6 above. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
With regards to claim 18, Pandrangi as modified teaches the system of claim 16 and it is a claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7 above. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
With regards to claim 19, Pandrangi as modified teaches the system of claim 16 and it is a claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 9 above. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
With regards to claim 20, Pandrangi as modified teaches the system of claim 16 and it is a claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 10 above. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but found they are unpersuasive.
As per the 101 arguments on pg. 9, that the amended independent claims are allowable under 35 USC 101 because the claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The claims are still directed toward an abstract idea. ‘Extracting a key from a message, decrypting, encrypting/securing, validating based on identifying a device identifier being associated with a contact list’ these are directed toward an abstract idea which a person can do on paper if needed. The applicant additionally argues on pg. 10, A person cannot mentally receive an SMS-based message, this is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Securing an SMS-based message is entirely possible for a person to do as they just need to encrypt with a security key. The applicant argues for claim 13, 17, 18, 19, and 20 on pg. 10 because the Examiner answers “No” at Step 2A Prong One, this point is moot in light of the amended independent claims introducing an additional abstract idea, which is inherited by the dependent claims. This requires a new analysis involving claims 1-20. The applicant further argues on pg. 11, that the additional elements (i.e. “first user device”, “second user device”, “computer product”, “computer readable media”, “program instructions”) were not analyzed as a combination. Examiner notes these additional elements were examined as required when recited in the claims and were noted during the analysis. Regarding, Applicants argument pertaining to In re Meyers, this case was meant to show data transmission as well understood, routine, and conventional. The examiner also cited MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), where multiple cases regarding data transmission are cited. Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
Applicants’ arguments regarding 35 U.S.C 102 filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 14-15, about Pandrangi fails to disclose or suggest, at least “identifying, by the first user device, the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device” in claim 1. However, Stephenson teaches: (Col. [4] line [66] - Col, [5] line [4], Stephenson shows "Passenger operation network system 100 can comprise a vehicle 110, a driver device 120 (first client device), and at least one second client device 130-1 and 130-2 (collectively 130) (passenger device). The first client device and other client devices can establish one or more additional passenger operation networks 150-1, 150-2, 150-3 (collectively 150)." Col. [6] lines [54-65], Stephenson shows "In some embodiments, establishing the passenger operation network 150 comprises receiving input (e.g., a trust token, device identifier, etc.) indicating the second client device 130 is a trusted device. In some embodiments, a permission list (e.g., contacts list, social media connections list, trusted devices list, etc.) can indicate the second client device 130 is a trusted device. The permission list can indicate a subset of allowable first client operations for the second client device 130 to instruct (e.g., allow, based on the permission list, the second client device 130 access to media controls, but ignore instructions relating to all other first client operations)."). With Stephenson it becomes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both references for “identifying, by the first user device, the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device”.
Applicant argues on Pg. 15, Pandrangi fails to disclose the features of claim 3. Claim 3 recites “wherein the message comprises one or more of: a short message service (SMS)-based message, or a multimedia messaging service (MMS)-based message.” However, Stephenson teaches: (Col. [7] lines [29-49], Stephenson shows "In some embodiments, the at least one instruction from the second client device 130 can include at least one data element (e.g., email recipient address, email subject line, email body, email attachments; SMS message recipient phone number, SMS message, SMS message attachments; social media platform identifier, social media status update, attachment to be uploaded to social media account; etc.). Executing the at least one instruction can further comprise performing the at least one instruction with the at least one data element (e.g., sending the email from an email account associated with the driver device 120 with the received data elements). Additionally, in some embodiments, the driver device 120 can forward received messages (e.g., emails, SMS messages, voicemails, etc.) and notifications to the second client device 130. The second client device 130 can access the forwarded content and reply to the message or notification with the at least one instruction including data elements. Based on the at least one instruction the driver device 120 can execute the at least one instruction with the included data elements (e.g., send a reply email or SMS message).")With Stephenson it becomes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both references for “wherein the message comprises one or more of: a short message service (SMS)-based message, or a multimedia messaging service (MMS)-based message.”.
Applicant argues on Pg. 16, Pandrangi fails to disclose the features of claim 9. Claim 9 recites “wherein the one or more settings comprise non- secure application settings”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9, the settings can comprise both non-secure and secure settings.
Applicant argues on Pg. 16, Pandrangi fails to disclose the features of claim 11. Claim 11 recites “receiving, from the second user device, an additional message comprising an additional indication of an update to the one or more settings”. Applicant argues that Pandrangi does not disclose device to device communication and instead teaches device to server communication. While this is not disclosed in the claim. Pandrangi in Para. [50] teaches “receives a request from a first user indicative of a desire by the first user to share a particular application on a first computing device with a second user. For example, application sharing system 104 in FIG. 1 may receive a request 114 from device 110 of User_1 indicative of a desire by User_1 to refer or share application 114 on device 110 with User_2.” The request originates from a user device and is received by a second user device. The request being sent to a server does not change the origin of the request from the first user device and the intent for the second user device to receive.
For these reasons above, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 102 is proper.
Applicants’ arguments regarding 35 U.S.C 103 filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 17 that Pandrangi in view of Waugh does not disclose all of the features of 4-6 and 12-20. Applicant states that Pandrangi in view of Waugh does not disclose “to identify the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device” as similarly recited in claims 1 and 16. However as cited above, Stephenson teaches (Col. [4] line [66] - Col, [5] line [4], Stephenson shows "Passenger operation network system 100 can comprise a vehicle 110, a driver device 120 (first client device), and at least one second client device 130-1 and 130-2 (collectively 130) (passenger device). The first client device and other client devices can establish one or more additional passenger operation networks 150-1, 150-2, 150-3 (collectively 150)." Col. [6] lines [54-65], Stephenson shows "In some embodiments, establishing the passenger operation network 150 comprises receiving input (e.g., a trust token, device identifier, etc.) indicating the second client device 130 is a trusted device. In some embodiments, a permission list (e.g., contacts list, social media connections list, trusted devices list, etc.) can indicate the second client device 130 is a trusted device. The permission list can indicate a subset of allowable first client operations for the second client device 130 to instruct (e.g., allow, based on the permission list, the second client device 130 access to media controls, but ignore instructions relating to all other first client operations)."). With Stephenson it becomes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both references “to identify the second user device as a trusted device based on a device identifier of the second user device being associated with a contact list of the first user device”.
Applicant argues that Pandrangi combining with Waugh requires hindsight reconstruction. However, what Waugh has been used to combine with Pandrangi has been securing / encrypting / decrypting / decoding messages with a key. This is well-known in the art and does not require hindsight reconstruction to teach using encryption and decryption techniques. These techniques are usable in many formats and is applicable when combined with Pandrangi.
For these reasons above, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 103 is proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10805458 B1 – This prior art teaches validating messages using trusted contacts
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 ZEERICK A MALIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8110. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/Z.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights