DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
(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 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nigam (US Pat No. 8,769,553).
Regarding claim 1, Nigam teaches an application deployment method applied to a first device connected to a second device, wherein the first device comprises a first application, the first application comprises a plurality of capability modules that are configured to be used for installation, the capability module is configured to implement one or more functions (Fig 1; col 2 line 57 to col 3 line 3, wherein a software application is developed to run on a set of deployment platform’s, wherein the application contains various revisions, i.e. modules), and the method comprises:
determining, by the first device based on capability information of the second device (col 5 lines 32-40), a first target capability module suitable for installation on the second device from the plurality of capability modules comprised in the first application (col 5 lines 3-17, wherein platform specific applications are defined for different target platforms); and
sending, by the first device, the first target capability module to the second device (col 2 line 57 to col 3 line 3, wherein the application is targeted to run on the second device; col 6 lines 45-50, wherein the application runs on the deployment platform).
Regarding claim 10, Nigam teaches wherein the first device is further connected to a third device, and the method further comprises: determining, by the first device based on capability information of the third device (col 5 lines 32-40), a second target capability module suitable for installation on the third device from the plurality of capability modules comprised in the first application (col 5 lines 3-17, wherein platform specific applications are defined for different target platforms); and sending, by the first device, the second target capability module to the third device (col 2 line 57 to col 3 line 3, wherein the application is targeted to run on the second device; col 6 lines 45-50, wherein the application runs on the deployment platform).
Regarding claim 11, Nigam teaches an application deployment method applied to a second device connected to a first device, wherein the first device comprises a first application, the first application comprises a plurality of capability modules configured to be used for installation (Fig 1; col 2 line 57 to col 3 line 3, wherein a software application is developed to run on a set of deployment platform’s, wherein the application contains various revisions, i.e. modules), the capability module has a capability of implementing one or more functions, and the method comprises:
receiving, by the second device, a first target capability module from the first device (col 5 lines 3-17, wherein platform specific applications are defined for different target platforms), wherein the first target capability module is one of the plurality of capability modules comprised in the first application (col 5 lines 32-40); and
installing, by the second device, the first target capability module (col 2 line 57 to col 3 line 3, wherein the application is targeted to run on the second device; col 6 lines 45-50, wherein the application runs on the deployment platform).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigam (US Pat No. 8,769,553) in view of Juncker et al. (US PG Pub No. 2008/0040417 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nigam does not teach further comprising, before determining, by the first device based on the capability information of the second device, the first target capability module suitable for installation on the second device from the plurality of capability modules comprised in the first application: receiving, by the first device, a first message from the second device, wherein the first message comprises the capability information of the second device.
Juncker teaches the computer device 202 (i.e. second device) may need to transmit its capabilities to the server 206 (i.e. first device) (Fig 5; [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to receive, by the first device, a first message from the second device, wherein the first message comprises the capability information of the second device. One would be motivated by the desire to ensure that the second device has registered its capabilities with the first device as taught by Juncker.
Regarding claim 3, Juncker teaches further comprising: displaying, by the first device, a first interface comprising device identifiers of one or more second devices; receiving, by the first device, a first operation, wherein the first operation is an operation of selecting a device identifier of the second device on the first interface; and sending, by the first device, a query request message to the second device in response to the first operation ([0014]; [0020]; [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Nigam does not teach wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the second device, a first message to the first device, wherein the first message comprises capability information of the second device.
Juncker teaches the computer device 202 (i.e. second device) may need to transmit its capabilities to the server 206 (i.e. first device) (Fig 5; [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to receive, by the first device, a first message from the second device, wherein the first message comprises the capability information of the second device. One would be motivated by the desire to ensure that the second device has registered its capabilities with the first device as taught by Juncker.
Regarding claim 13, Juncker teaches further comprising before sending, by the second device, the first message to the first device: receiving, by the second device, a query request message from the first device, wherein the query request message is used to query the capability information of the second device ([0014]; [0020]; [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Juncker teaches wherein sending, by the second device, the first message to the first device comprises: sending, by the second device, the first message to the first device in response to the second device establishing a connection to the first device (Fig 5; [0068]).
Regarding claim 15, Juncker teaches wherein the capability information of the second device comprises one or more of a device type, a device version, a device level, a device hardware capability, or a CPU-ABI type of the second device ([0041]).
Claim(s) 4-9, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigam (US Pat No. 8,769,553) in view of Young et al. (US PG Pub No. 2019/0138678 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nigam does not teach each capability module comprised in the first application comprises a configuration list corresponding to the capability module; and determining, by the first device based on capability information of the second device, the first target capability module suitable for installation on the second device from the plurality of capability modules comprised in the first application comprises: determining, by the first device based on the capability information of the second device and the configuration list corresponding to each capability module comprised in the first application, the first target capability module suitable for installation on the second device from the plurality of capability modules comprised in the first application.
Young teaches generating a list of code modules based on the device capability definition wherein each code that is available to the device configuration service is certified as being compatible with a particular hardware component ([0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a configuration list corresponding to the capability module; and determining, by the first device based on the capability information of the second device and the configuration list corresponding to each capability module comprised in the first application, the first target capability module suitable for installation on the second device from the plurality of capability modules comprised in the first application. One would be motivated by the desire to filter for only modules that are compatible as taught by Young ([0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Young teaches the configuration list corresponding to each capability module comprises: one or more of a device type suitable for the capability module; a minimum device version requirement corresponding to the device type suitable for the capability module; a minimum device level suitable for the capability module; a hardware capability requirement of the capability module; a central processing unit-application binary interface (CPU-ABI) type supported by the capability module; and a scenario type suitable for the capability module ([0029], “use case”).
Regarding claim 6, Young teaches wherein the capability information of the second device comprises one or more of a device type, a device version, a device level, a device hardware capability, and a CPU-ABI type of the second device ([0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Young teaches before sending, by the first device, the first target capability module to the second device: sending, by the first device, attribute information of the first target capability module to the second device; and receiving, by the first device, a download request message from the second device, wherein the download request message comprises identification information of the first target capability module ([0019]; [0039-40]).
Regarding claim 8, Young teaches wherein the attribute information of the first target capability module comprises one or more of the following: a capability name, version information, and a capability type of the first target capability module; a size of the first target capability module; a quantity of times that the first target capability module is used on the first device; or a permission required by the first target capability module ([0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Young teaches displaying, by the first device, a second interface comprising an installation prompt of the first target capability module; receiving, by the first device, a second operation, wherein the second operation is an operation of selecting to install the first target capability module; and sending, by the first device, a second message to the second device in response to the second operation, wherein the second message indicates the second device to install the first target capability module ([0018]; [0020]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 16, Nigam does not teach further comprising before the receiving, by the second device, the first target capability module from the first device: sending, by the second device, a download request message to the first device, wherein the download request message comprises identification information of the first target capability module.
Young teaches sending, by the second device, a download request message to the first device, wherein the download request message comprises identification information of the first target capability module ([0019]; [0039-40]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to send, by the second device, a download request message to the first device, wherein the download request message comprises identification information of the first target capability module. One would be motivated by the desire to initiate the transfer of data via downloading as taught by Young.
Regarding claim 17, Young teaches wherein sending, by the second device, the download request message to the first device comprises: receiving, by the second device, attribute information of the first target capability module from the first device; deciding, by the second device based on the attribute information of the first target capability module, whether to install the first target capability module; and sending, by the second device, the download request message to the first device in response to the second device deciding to install the first target capability module (Figs 6-8).
Regarding claim 18, Young teaches wherein the attribute information of the first target capability module comprises one or more of the following: a capability name, version information, and a capability type of the first target capability module; a size of the first target capability module; a quantity of times that the first target capability module is used on the first device; or a permission required by the first target capability module ([0029]).
Regarding claim 19, Young teaches the second device comprises a preset decision condition; and deciding, by the second device based on the attribute information of the first target capability module, whether to install the first target capability module comprises: in response to determining, based on the attribute information of the first target capability module, that the first target capability module meets the preset decision condition, deciding, by the second device, to install the first target capability module ([0039-40]).
Regarding claim 20, Young teaches wherein the present decision condition comprises one or more of the following: remaining storage space of the second device is greater than a size of the first target capability module; remaining power of the second device is greater than a first threshold; the second device is currently in a screen-off and charging stat; a quantity of times that the first target capability module is used on the first device is greater than a second threshold; and a permission required by the first target capability module does not comprise a sensitive permission ([0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights