DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 56-67 are pending. Claims 1-55 are cancelled.
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 .
Making Final
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The claim amendments regarding -- ‘wherein the callee comprises a first part and a second part, the first part is deployed in the first device, the second part is deployed in the third device, and the first resource comprises resources in the first device and the third device, before the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: creating, by the first device, a third instance of the first caller, and running the third instance in a permission range, wherein the first access request is generated in a process in which the first device runs the third instance; and after the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: creating, by the first device, a fourth instance of the first part, and running the fourth instance in a second permission range to access the first resource, wherein the third instance and the fourth instance have a same user identity (UID), and the second permission range is different from the first permission range, wherein the first instance is an instance of the second part’ -- clearly change the literal scope of the independent and dependent claims and/or the range of equivalents for such claims. The said amendments alter the scope of the claims but do not overcome the disclosure by the prior art as shown below.
The Examiner is presenting new grounds for rejection as necessitated by the claim amendments and is thus making this action FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The Applicant presents the following argument(s) [in italics]:
…Claim 56 has been amended to recite that the callee comprises parts in both the first and third devices, and the first resource comprises resources in the first and third devices. The cited prior art only shows a resource in a single device. … Claim 56 has also been amended to recite instances with different permission ranges, but a same UID. This also has not been shown in the cited prior art….
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant.
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 56) wherein the callee comprises a first part and a second part, the first part is deployed in the first device, the second part is deployed in the third device, (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus. A first camera control application is located in a memory of the tablet 600, a second camera control application is located in a memory of the phone 610, and a third camera control application is located in a memory of the camera 620,Paragraph 70,one of the apparatuses, or a remote server, can act as a controller to control the synchronisation between the multiple apparatuses, or more than one of the apparatuses can act in cooperation to control the synchronisation. )
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 56) creating, by the first device, a third instance of the first caller (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus.)
Lohan-Okamoto disclosed (re. Claim 56) the first resource comprises resources in the first device and the third device, (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus.) before the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device (Okamoto-Paragraph 64, a first user U1 has performed an operation to view a recorded program A on a TV screen, Paragraph 64, a second user U2 performs an operation to view a recorded program B on the TV screen)
While Lohan-Okamoto substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Okamoto does not disclose (re. Claim 56) running the third instance in a permission range, wherein the first access request is generated in a process in which the first device runs the third instance; and after the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: creating, by the first device, a fourth instance of the first part, and running the fourth instance in a second permission range to access the first resource, wherein the third instance and the fourth instance have a same user identity (UID), and the second permission range is different from the first permission range, wherein the first instance is an instance of the second part.
Begin Paragraph 30 disclosed wherein based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions.
Begin disclosed (re. Claim 56) running the third instance in a permission range, (Begin-Paragraph 30,based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions, Paragraph 33, a processor executing the user experience software may utilize data related to app permissions (e.g., end user permissions upon installation of the app on an Android.RTM. smartphone, etc.) to predict likely hardware/resources usage associated with particular apps.) wherein the first access request is generated in a process in which the first device runs the third instance; and after the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: creating, by the first device, a fourth instance of the first part, and running the fourth instance in a second permission range to access the first resource, wherein the third instance and the fourth instance have a same user identity (UID), (Begin-Paragraph 23, current activity information may include any information that indicates the user's intended activities, including a current time (e.g., time of day, day of week, etc.), the identity of the logged-in user of the mobile device) and the second permission range is different from the first permission range, wherein the first instance is an instance of the second part. (Begin-Paragraph 30,based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions,Paragraph 33, a processor executing the user experience software may utilize data related to app permissions (e.g., end user permissions upon installation of the app on an Android.RTM. smartphone, etc.) to predict likely hardware/resources usage associated with particular apps.)
Lohan and Begin are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Begin into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow user experience software to obtain, infer, or otherwise predict the resources that may be used by a particular application based on permissions data (or configuration data) associated with the application. In other words, the processor may predict resources that are relevant to the current circumstances based on information provided by an app developer.(Begin-Paragraph 72)
Priority
This application claims benefits of priority from Foreign Application CN202110280096.1 (CHINA) filed March 16, 2021.
The effective date of the claims described in this application is March 16, 2021.
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) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohan (USPGPUB 2014/0375834) further in view of Okamoto (USPGPUB 2014/0156030) further in view of Begin (USPGPUB 2015/0031326)
Regarding Claim 56
Lohan Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59 disclosed wherein camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus. A first camera control application is located in a memory of the tablet 600, a second camera control application is located in a memory of the phone 610, and a third camera control application is located in a memory of the camera 620. Lohan Paragraph 70 disclosed wherein one of the apparatuses, or a remote server, can act as a controller to control the synchronisation between the multiple apparatuses, or more than one of the apparatuses can act in cooperation to control the synchronisation.
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 56) a cross-device access control method, wherein the method is applied to a communication system comprising a first device, a second device, and a third device, (Lohan-Paragraph 50, three apparatuses: a portable electronic device such as a tablet computer 600, a mobile telephone 610 and a digital camera 620 )
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 56) a first caller is installed in the first device, a second caller is installed in the second device, a callee is installed in the third device, the first caller, the second caller, and the callee are applications (APPs) or functional components, an APP is a program entity that implements a plurality of functions, and a functional component is a program entity that implements a single function; (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus. A first camera control application is located in a memory of the tablet 600, a second camera control application is located in a memory of the phone 610, and a third camera control application is located in a memory of the camera 620,Paragraph 70,one of the apparatuses, or a remote server, can act as a controller to control the synchronisation between the multiple apparatuses, or more than one of the apparatuses can act in cooperation to control the synchronisation. )
While Lohan substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan does not disclose (re. Claim 56) sending, by the first device, a first access request to the third device, wherein the first access request is used by the first caller to call the callee to access a first resource in the third device; sending, by the second device, a second access request to the third device, wherein the second access request is used by the second caller to call the callee to access the first resource; and furthermore determining, by the third device, that a priority of the first caller is higher than a priority of the second caller, wherein a priority of a caller depends on one or more of the following: a running status of the caller, a device in which the caller is located, the third device, a user that logs in to the device in which the caller is located, and a user that logs in to the third device; and in response to the first access request and the determining, running, by the third device, the callee to access the first resource.
Okamoto Figure 5-6, Paragraph 18 disclosed wherein remote controller managing device 100 is configured to control the target control device so as to correspond to one of the operation instructions of one of the remote controllers with a higher priority order based on predetermined priority orders when the conflict determining module determines that the operation instructions conflict with each other.
Okamoto disclosed (re. Claim 56) sending, by the first device, a first access request to the third device, wherein the first access request is used by the first caller to call the callee to access a first resource in the third device;(Okamoto-Paragraph 64, a first user U1 has performed an operation to view a recorded program A on a TV screen) sending, by the second device, a second access request to the third device, wherein the second access request is used by the second caller to call the callee to access the first resource; (Okamoto-Paragraph 64, a second user U2 performs an operation to view a recorded program B on the TV screen.)
Okamoto disclosed (re. Claim 56) determining, by the third device, that a priority of the first caller is higher than a priority of the second caller, (Okamoto-Paragraph 75, a program of a user with a priority order, if any, higher than a priority order of the other user is to be reproduced,Paragraph 79, remote controller managing device 100 determines whether the operating terminal 200 that issued the received remote controller operation has a priority order higher than a priority order of the other operating terminal 200)
wherein a priority of a caller depends on one or more of the following: a running status of the caller, a device in which the caller is located, the third device, a user that logs in to the device in which the caller is located, (Okamoto-Paragraph 122, a distance between the operating terminal (remote controller) and the TV terminal may be used) and a user that logs in to the third device;(Okamoto-Paragraph 83, A higher priority order is assigned to an operating terminal for which a login process is completed earlier, Paragraph 87, A logged-in terminal is assigned with a higher priority order than an unlogged-in terminal) and
in response to the first access request and the determining, running, by the third device, the callee to access the first resource.(Okamoto-Paragraph 95, if it is determined at Seo8 that the operating terminal 200 that issued the received remote controller operation has a priority order higher than a priority order of the other operating terminal 200 (Yes at Seo8), the remote controller managing device 100 proceeds to S20, executes the received remote controller operation)
Lohan and Okamoto are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Okamoto into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow a plurality of users to perform respective remote controller operations for reproduction without being interrupted by each other.(Okamoto-Paragraph 69)
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 56) wherein the callee comprises a first part and a second part, the first part is deployed in the first device, the second part is deployed in the third device, (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus. A first camera control application is located in a memory of the tablet 600, a second camera control application is located in a memory of the phone 610, and a third camera control application is located in a memory of the camera 620,Paragraph 70,one of the apparatuses, or a remote server, can act as a controller to control the synchronisation between the multiple apparatuses, or more than one of the apparatuses can act in cooperation to control the synchronisation. )
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 56) creating, by the first device, a third instance of the first caller (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus.)
Lohan-Okamoto disclosed (re. Claim 56) the first resource comprises resources in the first device and the third device, (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus.) before the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device (Okamoto-Paragraph 64, a first user U1 has performed an operation to view a recorded program A on a TV screen, Paragraph 64, a second user U2 performs an operation to view a recorded program B on the TV screen)
While Lohan-Okamoto substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Okamoto does not disclose (re. Claim 56) running the third instance in a permission range, wherein the first access request is generated in a process in which the first device runs the third instance; and after the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: creating, by the first device, a fourth instance of the first part, and running the fourth instance in a second permission range to access the first resource, wherein the third instance and the fourth instance have a same user identity (UID), and the second permission range is different from the first permission range, wherein the first instance is an instance of the second part.
Begin Paragraph 30 disclosed wherein based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions.
Begin disclosed (re. Claim 56) running the third instance in a permission range, (Begin-Paragraph 30,based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions, Paragraph 33, a processor executing the user experience software may utilize data related to app permissions (e.g., end user permissions upon installation of the app on an Android.RTM. smartphone, etc.) to predict likely hardware/resources usage associated with particular apps.) wherein the first access request is generated in a process in which the first device runs the third instance; and after the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: creating, by the first device, a fourth instance of the first part, and running the fourth instance in a second permission range to access the first resource, wherein the third instance and the fourth instance have a same user identity (UID), (Begin-Paragraph 23, current activity information may include any information that indicates the user's intended activities, including a current time (e.g., time of day, day of week, etc.), the identity of the logged-in user of the mobile device) and the second permission range is different from the first permission range, wherein the first instance is an instance of the second part. (Begin-Paragraph 30,based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions,Paragraph 33, a processor executing the user experience software may utilize data related to app permissions (e.g., end user permissions upon installation of the app on an Android.RTM. smartphone, etc.) to predict likely hardware/resources usage associated with particular apps.)
Lohan and Begin are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Begin into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow user experience software to obtain, infer, or otherwise predict the resources that may be used by a particular application based on permissions data (or configuration data) associated with the application. In other words, the processor may predict resources that are relevant to the current circumstances based on information provided by an app developer.(Begin-Paragraph 72)
Claim(s) 57,60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohan (USPGPUB 2014/0375834) further in view of Okamoto (USPGPUB 2014/0156030) further in view of Begin (USPGPUB 2015/0031326)
Regarding Claim 57
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 57) a first device, a second device, (Lohan-Paragraph 50, three apparatuses: a portable electronic device such as a tablet computer 600, a mobile telephone 610 and a digital camera 620 ) wherein a first operating system is installed in the first device, a second operating system is installed in the third device, (Lohan-Paragraph 42, Each of the apparatuses 400, 410, 420 may be running an operating system that is the same or different to the operating systems of the other apparatuses)
While Lohan-Okamoto substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Okamoto does not disclose (re. Claim 57) wherein the first access request is in a description form used in the first operating system;
mapping, by the third device, the access request from the description form used in the first operating system to a description form used in the second operating system; and
running, by the third device, the callee based on the access request in the description form used in the second operating system, to access the first resource.
Begin Paragraph 69 disclosed wherein processor may identify applications that have been launched based on interrupts, signals, or other messages that are reported by the HLOS that also include descriptive information (e.g., a signal may indicate that a touch input was detected that coincides with an "Application B" graphical icon).
Begin disclosed (re. Claim 57) wherein the first access request is in a description form used in the first operating system; (Begin-Paragraph 69,processor may identify applications that have been launched based on interrupts, signals, or other messages that are reported by the HLOS that also include descriptive information (e.g., a signal may indicate that a touch input was detected that coincides with an "Application B" graphical icon). )
mapping, by the third device, the access request from the description form used in the first operating system to a description form used in the second operating system; (Begin-Paragraph 67, input data may be used by the processor to identify whether and how the user is actively using the mobile device. Input data from the HLOS may also include identifying information for applications, such as process identifiers, or selected icon names )
Lohan and Begin are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Begin into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow user experience software to obtain, infer, or otherwise predict the resources that may be used by a particular application based on permissions data (or configuration data) associated with the application. The processor may predict resources that are relevant to the current circumstances based on information provided by an app developer.(Begin-Paragraph 72)
Lohan-Okamoto-Begin disclosed (re. Claim 57) running, by the third device, the callee based on the access request (Lohan-Paragraph 62, Based on this user input, as shown in FIG. 6b, the open instance of the camera control application of the camera 620 is provided as a corresponding open instance of an at least related (camera control) application on the tablet 600.) in the description form used in the second operating system, (Begin-Paragraph 69,processor may identify applications that have been launched based on interrupts, signals, or other messages that are reported by the HLOS that also include descriptive information (e.g., a signal may indicate that a touch input was detected that coincides with an "Application B" graphical icon). ) to access the first resource.
Regarding Claim 60
Lohan-Okamoto disclosed (re. Claim 60) an access control method, wherein the method is applied to a communication system comprising a first device and a third device, a first caller and a first part of a callee are installed in the first device, a second part of the callee is installed in the third device, the first caller and the callee are application (APPs) or functional components, an APP is a program entity that implements a plurality of functions, and a functional component is a program entity that implements a single function.(Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus. A first camera control application is located in a memory of the tablet 600, a second camera control application is located in a memory of the phone 610, and a third camera control application is located in a memory of the camera 620,Paragraph 70,one of the apparatuses, or a remote server, can act as a controller to control the synchronisation between the multiple apparatuses, or more than one of the apparatuses can act in cooperation to control the synchronisation. )
While Lohan-Okamoto substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Okamoto does not disclose (re. Claim 60)
creating, by the first device, a third instance of the first caller, and running the third instance in a first permission range; sending, by the first device, a first access request to the third device in a process of running the third instance, wherein the first access request is used by the first caller to call the callee to access a first resource, and the first resource comprises a resource in the first device and a resource in the third device; and creating, by the first device, a fourth instance of the first part of the callee, and running the fourth instance in a second permission range to access the first resource, wherein the third instance and the fourth instance have a same user identity (UID), and the second permission range is different from the first permission range.
Begin Paragraph 30 disclosed wherein based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions.
Begin disclosed (re. Claim 60) creating, by the first device, a third instance of the first caller, and running the third instance in a first permission range (Begin-Paragraph 30,based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions, Paragraph 33, a processor executing the user experience software may utilize data related to app permissions (e.g., end user permissions upon installation of the app on an Android.RTM. smartphone, etc.) to predict likely hardware/resources usage associated with particular apps.)
Lohan and Begin are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Begin into Lohan-Okamoto. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow user experience software to obtain, infer, or otherwise predict the resources that may be used by a particular application based on permissions data (or configuration data) associated with the application. In other words, the processor may predict resources that are relevant to the current circumstances based on information provided by an app developer.(Begin-Paragraph 72)
Lohan-Okamoto-Begin disclosed (re. Claim 60) sending, by the first device, a first access request to the third device in a process of running the third instance, (Okamoto-Paragraph 95, if it is determined at Seo8 that the operating terminal 200 that issued the received remote controller operation has a priority order higher than a priority order of the other operating terminal 200 (Yes at Seo8), the remote controller managing device 100 proceeds to S20, executes the received remote controller operation) wherein the first access request is used by the first caller to call the callee to access a first resource, and the first resource comprises a resource in the first device and a resource in the third device; (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus. A first camera control application is located in a memory of the tablet 600, a second camera control application is located in a memory of the phone 610, and a third camera control application is located in a memory of the camera 620,Paragraph 70,one of the apparatuses, or a remote server, can act as a controller to control the synchronisation between the multiple apparatuses, or more than one of the apparatuses can act in cooperation to control the synchronisation. )
and creating, by the first device, a fourth instance of the first part of the callee, and running the fourth instance in a second permission range to access the first resource, wherein the third instance and the fourth instance have a same user identity (UID), (Begin-Paragraph 23, current activity information may include any information that indicates the user's intended activities, including a current time (e.g., time of day, day of week, etc.), the identity of the logged-in user of the mobile device) and the second permission range is different from the first permission range. (Begin-Paragraph 30,based on the obtained profile of the navigation app, a processor executing the user experience software may cause a mitigation policy to be adjusted to assure minimal limiting of the GPS, WWAN, display, and audio components of the mobile device, while enabling limiting of WLAN, GPU, and camera functions,Paragraph 33, a processor executing the user experience software may utilize data related to app permissions (e.g., end user permissions upon installation of the app on an Android.RTM. smartphone, etc.) to predict likely hardware/resources usage associated with particular apps.)
Regarding Claim 61
Lohan-Okamoto-Begin disclosed (re. Claim 61) wherein after the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: in response to the first caller in the first device changing from a first running status to a second running status, sending, by the first device, the second running status of the first caller to the third device.(Lohan-Paragraph 70, Any inputs made on the new apparatus may be received by the open instance of the camera control application on the old; however, on-going synchronisation of the transient content of the applications on the apparatuses may mean that the effect of such inputs at the old apparatus is propagated into the application running on the new apparatus.)
Regarding Claim 62
Lohan-Okamoto-Begin disclosed (re. Claim 62) wherein after the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: sending, by the first device, a third access request to a fourth device in the communication system (Lohan-Paragraph 90-91, after detecting the particular user input, the apparatus which has received the user input may look for apparatuses with which it can form a network to allow for the provision of the corresponding open instance, Paragraph 70, Any inputs made on the new apparatus may be received by the open instance of the camera control application on the old; however, on-going synchronisation of the transient content of the applications on the apparatuses may mean that the effect of such inputs at the old apparatus is propagated into the application running on the new apparatus.) in response to the third device failing to respond to the first access request, wherein the fourth device is the same as or different from the third device, and the callee is installed in the fourth device.(Lohan-Paragraph 82, control application may be instead (or subsequently) transferred between apparatuses that are both cameras, or of which neither are cameras.)
Claim(s) 63-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohan (USPGPUB 2014/0375834) further in view of Okamoto (USPGPUB 2014/0156030) further in view of Begin (USPGPUB 2015/0031326) further in view of Seo (USPGPUB 2019/0065711)
Regarding Claim 63
While Lohan-Okamoto-Begin substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Okamoto-Begin does not disclose (re. Claim 63) wherein before the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: applying for and obtaining, by the first device, permission of the first caller to access the first resource, and sending, to the third device, information about the permission of the first caller to access the first resource.
Seo Paragraph 172 disclosed wherein when a first application is installed (or downloaded) or initially executed, the electronic device may determine whether to allow the first application to acquire a first permission.
Seo disclosed (re. Claim 63) wherein before the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: applying for and obtaining, by the first device, permission of the first caller to access the first resource, and sending, to the third device, information about the permission of the first caller to access the first resource.( Seo-Paragraph 172,when a first application is installed (or downloaded) or initially executed, the electronic device may determine whether to allow the first application to acquire a first permission.)
Lohan and Seo are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Seo into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable permission processing module 349 to differently configure the permission of the application depending on the state of the application. The permission processing module 349 may differently configure the permission of an application depending on whether the state information of the application corresponds to a foreground state or a background state.(Seo-Paragraph 72)
Regarding Claim 64
Lohan-Begin-Seo disclose (re. Claim 64) wherein after the sending, by the first device, the first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: receiving, by the first device, a request that is for applying for the permission of the first caller to access the first resource and that is sent by the third device; and applying for and obtaining, by the first device, the permission of the first caller to access the first resource, and sending, to the third device, the information about the permission of the first caller to access the first resource. (Seo-Paragraph 172,when a first application is installed (or downloaded) or initially executed, the electronic device may determine whether to allow the first application to acquire a first permission.)
Claim(s) 65-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohan (USPGPUB 2014/0375834) further in view of Okamoto (USPGPUB 2014/0156030) further in view of Begin (USPGPUB 2015/0031326) further in view of Seo (USPGPUB 2019/0065711) further in view of Zhang (USPGPUB 2021/0318893)
Regarding Claim 65
While Lohan-Okamoto-Begin-Seo substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Okamoto-Begin-Seo does not disclose (re. Claim 65) wherein the permission that is of the first caller to access the first resource and that is applied for and obtained by the first device is valid in a first time period;
or after the sending, by the first device to the third device, information about the permission of the first caller to access the first resource, the method further comprises: sending, by the first device to the third device, a message for revoking the permission of the first caller to access the first resource.
Zhang Paragraph 357 disclosed wherein the computer system (e.g., 700) sets one or more system privileges for the software to include permission, for a predetermined time period (e.g., for a limited duration) (e.g., for 8 hours; for 12 hours; until the end of the current day)
Zhang disclosed (re. Claim 65) wherein the permission that is of the first caller to access the first resource and that is applied for and obtained by the first device is valid in a first time period; (Zhang-Paragraph 357,the computer system (e.g., 700) sets one or more system privileges for the software to include permission, for a predetermined time period (e.g., for a limited duration) (e.g., for 8 hours; for 12 hours; until the end of the current day) )
or after the sending, by the first device to the third device, information about the permission of the first caller to access the first resource, the method further comprises: sending, by the first device to the third device, a message for revoking the permission of the first caller to access the first resource.
Lohan and Zhang are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Zhang into Lohan-Begin-Seo. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow setting the one or more system privileges for the software (e.g., automatically, without further user input) (Zhang-Paragraph 357)
Regarding Claim 66
Lohan-Okamoto-Begin-Seo-Zhang disclose (re. Claim 66) wherein the first caller is a third-party application, and after the sending, by the first device to the third device, information about the permission of the first caller to access the first resource, the method further comprises: recording, by the first device, first information, wherein the first information indicates that the third device has obtained the permission information of the first caller; (Seo-Paragraph 172, When a user allows the first application to acquire the first permission, the electronic device may store the first permission) and after the permission of the first caller in the first device changes, sending, by the first device, changed permission information of the first caller to the third device based on the first information. (Zhang-Paragraph 357,the computer system (e.g., 700) sets one or more system privileges for the software to include permission, for a predetermined time period (e.g., for a limited duration) (e.g., for 8 hours; for 12 hours; until the end of the current day) )
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohan (USPGPUB 2014/0375834) further in view of Okamoto (USPGPUB 2014/0156030) further in view of Begin (USPGPUB 2015/0031326) further in view of Bharadwaj (USPGPUB 2018/0129519)
Regarding Claim 67
While Lohan-Okamoto-Begin substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Okamoto-Begin does not disclose (re. Claim 67) wherein the first caller is a system application, and before the sending, by the first device, a first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: sending, by the first device, permission information of each installed system application to the third device after a connection is established between the first device and the third device.
Bharadwaj Figure 7,Figure 8,Paragraph 129, Paragraph 134 disclosed identifying the user of the secondary device 100 using the identity management system 208. The method allows the authorization system 406 to identify the user of the secondary device 100 using the identity management system 208. At step 706, the method includes authorizing the level of access to the graphical representation of the application 106 running in the secondary device 100 to the user of the primary device 200.
Bharadwaj disclosed (re. Claim 67) wherein the first caller is a system application, and before the sending, by the first device, a first access request to the third device, the method further comprises: sending, by the first device, permission information of each installed system application to the third device after a connection is established between the first device and the third device.( Bharadwaj-Figure 7,Figure 8,Paragraph 129, Paragraph 134,identifying the user of the secondary device 100 using the identity management system 208. The method allows the authorization system 406 to identify the user of the secondary device 100 using the identity management system 208. At step 706, the method includes authorizing the level of access to the graphical representation of the application 106 running in the secondary device 100 to the user of the primary device 200.)
Lohan and Bharadwaj are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Bharadwaj into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow the identity management system 208 to store the relationship of each of the secondary device 100 with corresponding user to dynamically determine the identity of the user of the secondary device 100.(Bharadwaj-Paragraph 101)
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohan (USPGPUB 2014/0375834) further in view of Bharadwaj (USPGPUB 2018/0129519) further in view of Lin (US Patent 11157259)
Regarding Claim 58
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 58) an access control method, wherein the method is applied to a communication system comprising a first device, a second device, and a third device, (Lohan-Paragraph 50, three apparatuses: a portable electronic device such as a tablet computer 600, a mobile telephone 610 and a digital camera 620 )
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 58) wherein the method is applied to a third device, a callee is installed in the third device, the callee is an application (APP) or a functional component, an APP is a program entity that implements a plurality of functions, and a functional component is a program entity that implements a single function; (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus. A first camera control application is located in a memory of the tablet 600, a second camera control application is located in a memory of the phone 610, and a third camera control application is located in a memory of the camera 620,Paragraph 70,one of the apparatuses, or a remote server, can act as a controller to control the synchronisation between the multiple apparatuses, or more than one of the apparatuses can act in cooperation to control the synchronisation. )
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 58) receiving, by the third device, a first access request from a first device, wherein the first access request requests to access a first resource in the third device; (Lohan-Paragraph 62, Based on this user input, as shown in FIG. 6b, the open instance of the camera control application of the camera 620 is provided as a corresponding open instance of an at least related (camera control) application on the tablet 600.);
in response to the first access request, creating, by the third device, a first instance of the callee, and running the first instance to access the first resource; (Lohan-Paragraph 62, Based on this user input, as shown in FIG. 6b, the open instance of the camera control application of the camera 620 is provided as a corresponding open instance of an at least related (camera control) application on the tablet 600.);
Lohan disclosed (re. Claim 58) wherein the callee comprises a first part and a second part, the first part is deployed in the first device, the second part is deployed in the third device, and the first resource comprises resources in the first device and the third device. (Lohan-Figure 6A, Figure 9,Paragraph 59,camera control applications are provided for use on apparatuses 600, 610, 620 by accessing respective memories located with each apparatus. A first camera control application is located in a memory of the tablet 600, a second camera control application is located in a memory of the phone 610, and a third camera control application is located in a memory of the camera 620,Paragraph 70,one of the apparatuses, or a remote server, can act as a controller to control the synchronisation between the multiple apparatuses, or more than one of the apparatuses can act in cooperation to control the synchronisation. )
While Lohan substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan does not disclose (re. Claim 58) receiving, by the third device, a second access request from a second device, wherein the second access request requests to access a second resource in the third device
and in response to the second access request, creating, by the third device, a second instance of the callee, and running the second instance to access the second resource, wherein the second instance is different from the first instance, the first instance and the second instance are processes or threads running in a random access memory (RAM), and the first instance and the second instance are isolated from each other.
Bharadwaj Paragraph 80 disclosed wherein first and second smartwatches and the smart band send the information to a laptop. The laptop receives the information from the first and second smartwatches and the smart band and emulate the only graphical representation of the application 106 running in the first and second smartwatches and the smart band.
Bharadwaj Figure 9, Paragraph 139 disclosed wherein secondary devices 100a-100c send the information about the graphical representation to the primary device 200. The primary device 200 receives the information about the graphical representation. After receiving the information about the graphical representation, the emulating engine 206 emulates the graphical representation of the messaging application, the music application, and the calling application running in the secondary devices 100a-100c.
Bharadwaj disclosed (re. Claim 58) receiving, by the third device, a second access request from a second device, wherein the second access request requests to access a second resource in the third device (Bharadwaj-Figure 9, Paragraph 139,secondary devices 100a-100c send the information about the graphical representation to the primary device 200. The primary device 200 receives the information about the graphical representation. After receiving the information about the graphical representation, the emulating engine 206 emulates the graphical representation of the messaging application, the music application, and the calling application running in the secondary devices 100a-100c.)
and in response to the second access request, creating, by the third device, a second instance of the callee, and running the second instance to access the second resource, wherein the second instance is different from the first instance (Bharadwaj-Figure 9, Paragraph 139,secondary devices 100a-100c send the information about the graphical representation to the primary device 200. The primary device 200 receives the information about the graphical representation. After receiving the information about the graphical representation, the emulating engine 206 emulates the graphical representation of the messaging application, the music application, and the calling application running in the secondary devices 100a-100c.)
Lohan and Bharadwaj are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Bharadwaj into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow the identity management system 208 to store the relationship of each of the secondary device 100 with corresponding user to dynamically determine the identity of the user of the secondary device 100.(Bharadwaj-Paragraph 101)
While Lohan-Bharadwaj substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Bharadwaj does not disclose (re. Claim 58) the first instance and the second instance are processes or threads running in a random access memory (RAM), and the first instance and the second instance are isolated from each other.
Lin Figure 2,Column 9 Lines 55-65 disclosed wherein a mobile shell 210, a web shell 220, and a desktop shell 230, each of which may communicate with one or more shell sandbox APIs, such as mobile shell sandbox API 240, and web shell sandbox API 250 to access application utilities and other capabilities provided by a shell runtime.
Lin disclosed (re. Claim 58) the first instance and the second instance are processes or threads running in a random access memory (RAM),(Lin-Column 16 Lines 30, Resource loading module 373 allows an application executing within an application shell to reserve resources (e.g., temporary and/or persistent memory) ) and the first instance and the second instance are isolated from each other.(Lin-Column 9 Lines 50-60 , dynamically generating and deploying user interfaces in cross-platform applications using shell sandbox APIs, such as mobile shell sandbox API 240, and web shell sandbox API 250,Column 14 Lines 25 , At runtime, shells 210, 220, and 230 can create an instance of a sandbox)
Lohan and Lin are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Lin into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow facilitating communication between widgets that are not configured to communicate directly with one another.(Lin-Column 17 Lines 30)
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohan (USPGPUB 2014/0375834) further in view of Bharadwaj (USPGPUB 2018/0129519) further in view of Lin (US Patent 11157259) further in view of Begin (USPGPUB 2015/0031326)
Regarding Claim 59
Lohan-Bharadwaj-Lin disclosed (re. Claim 59) creating, by the third device, the first instance of the callee (Lohan-Paragraph 62, Based on this user input, as shown in FIG. 6b, the open instance of the camera control application of the camera 620 is provided as a corresponding open instance of an at least related (camera control) application on the tablet 600.) and the creating the second instance of the callee. (Bharadwaj-Figure 9, Paragraph 139,secondary devices 100a-100c send the information about the graphical representation to the primary device 200. The primary device 200 receives the information about the graphical representation. After receiving the information about the graphical representation, the emulating engine 206 emulates the graphical representation of the messaging application, the music application, and the calling application running in the secondary devices 100a-100c.)
While Lohan-Bharadwaj-Lin substantially disclosed the claimed invention Lohan-Bharadwaj-Lin does not disclose (re. Claim 59) wherein after the creating, by the third device, a first instance of the callee and the creating a second instance of the callee, the method further comprises: storing, by the third device, a calling relationship between the first caller in the first device and the first instance and a calling relationship between the second caller in the second device and the second instance.
Begin Paragraph 56 disclosed wherein a processor executing the user experience software may match a code representing a current circumstance (e.g., app ID of the application currently executing in the foreground of the mobile device) to a code associated with a record stored in the database. The processor executing the user experience software may use the circumstances to perform a look-up on a relational database that includes activity profiles.
Begin disclosed (re. Claim 59) storing, by the third device, a calling relationship between the first caller in the first device and the first instance and a calling relationship between the second caller in the second device and the second instance.( Begin-Paragraph 56,a processor executing the user experience software may match a code representing a current circumstance (e.g., app ID of the application currently executing in the foreground of the mobile device) to a code associated with a record stored in the database. The processor executing the user experience software may use the circumstances to perform a look-up on a relational database that includes activity profiles)
Lohan and Begin are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding user device management. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Begin into Lohan. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow user experience software to obtain, infer, or otherwise predict the resources that may be used by a particular application based on permissions data (or configuration data) associated with the application. In other words, the processor may predict resources that are relevant to the current circumstances based on information provided by an app developer.(Begin-Paragraph 72)
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREG C BENGZON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444