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 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 4-5 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 4 and 1 recite(s):
establishing a decoding key associated with the message
decoding, before configuring the application, the message using the decoding key
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;
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 4 is a method
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 "Establishing a decoding key" and decoding with the decoding key, as drafted in #1 and #2 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts.. That is, other than reciting the method is performed by a first user device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed on paper 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 #3 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 gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "configuring" limitation in #4 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. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claim(s) recite the following additional element(s):
A
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 #3 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:
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
Claim(s) 5 and 1 recite(s):
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;
decrypting the message using the public key.
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;
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 5 is
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 “verifying”, as drafted in #5 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting the method is performed by a first user device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
The limitation of “decoding”, as drafted in #6 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting the method is performed by a first user device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed on paper by a person.
The limitation of “extracting”, as drafted in #7 and #8 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting the method is performed by a first user device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed on paper by a person.
The limitation of “decrypting”, 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 the method is performed by a first user device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed on paper 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 #10 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 gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "configuring" limitation in #11 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. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claim(s) recite the following additional element(s):
A
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 #10 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:
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
Claim(s) 12 recite(s):
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;
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 ma
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes.
The limitation of "SMS-based message being secured using a security key", 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 the method is secured by a second user device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed on paper by a person.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "instructions to receive" limitations in #12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "instructions to receive" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "instructions to configure" limitation in #14 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 setting configuration. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
A computer product
One or more computer readable media and
program instructions collectively stored on the one or more 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 #12 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:
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
Claim(s) 13 recite(s):
transmit a request for the indication of the one or more settings
wherein the SMS-based message is received based on transmission of the request
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 13 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
No.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "transmit" limitations in #15 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 gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "SMS-based message" limitations in #16 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 gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
program instructions
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 #15 and #16 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:
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
Claim(s) 14 recite(s):
decode, before configuring the application, the message using a decoding key associated with the security key
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 14 is a
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", as drafted in #17 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting program instructions comprise, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from performed on paper by a person.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
A computer product
Program instructions
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.
Claim(s) 15 recite(s):
verification that the message is from the second user device,
decoding of the message;
extraction of a public key from the message;
extraction of the indication of the one or more settings;
decryption of the message using the public key.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 15 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 "verification", as drafted in #18 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting “program instructions comprising”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person upon a piece of paper.
The limitation of "decoding", as drafted in #19 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting “program instructions comprising”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person upon a piece of paper.
The limitation of "extraction", as drafted in #20 and #21 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting “program instructions comprising”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person upon a piece of paper.
The limitation of "decryption", as drafted in #22 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting “program instructions comprising”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person upon a piece of paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
A computer product
Program instructions
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.
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, wherein the message comprises a hash of the one or more settings that is signed with a private key
validate that the message is associated with the second user device
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 #24 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting one or more devices configured to, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed on paper by a person.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "receive" limitations in #23 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, to receive a message in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "configure" limitation in #25 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 changing settings. 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 #23 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:
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
Claim(s) 17 recite(s):
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 17 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
No.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "indication" limitations in #26-28 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, an indication in the context of this claim encompasses merely data with setting 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) 18 recite(s):
receive user input to install the application;
and install 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 18 is machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
No.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "receive user input" limitations in #29 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, receiving user input in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The "install" and "configuring" limitation in #30 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, installing and configuring an application in the context of this claim encompasses merely installing and changing settings in an application. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
one or more devices
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 #29 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:
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
Claim(s) 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 19 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
No.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "settings" limitation in #31 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, settings comprising of non-secure application settings in the context of this claim encompasses merely configuration data comprising of configuration data. 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) 20 recite(s):
receive the message via a server device;
or receive 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 20 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
No.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "receive" limitations in #32 and #33 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 gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
one or more devices
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 #32 and #33 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:
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
For at least the reasoning above, claims 4-5 and 12-20 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160197773 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Pandrangi).
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).
With regards to claim 2, Pandrangi 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)).
With regards to claim 3, Pandrangi teaches:
wherein the message comprises one or more of: a short message service (SMS)-based message, or a multimedia messaging service (MMS)-based message (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).
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.).
With regards to claim 10, Pandrangi teaches:
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 (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).
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).
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) 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 6678821 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Waugh et Al.).
With regards to claim 4, Pandrangi teaches the method of claim 1 as cited above. However, Pandrangi 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. However, Pandrangi 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. However, Pandrangi 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
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);
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]).
With regards to claim 13, Pandrangi as modified teaches the computer program product of claim 12 and:
wherein the program instructions comprise program instructions to transmit a request for the indication of the one or more settings (Para. [5], Pandrangi shows a user (first user) request to share an application and/or its current configuration settings with another user), wherein the SMS-based message is received based on transmission of the request (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).
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;
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);
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]).
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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wright et Al. US 9894050 B1 shows application configuration settings being shared and encrypting the settings using asymmetric techniques
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