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. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 29, 2023, September 6, 2024, and April 11, 2025 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. (MPEP 2111.04, II.) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 38-54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 38 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 recites the limitation "the first electronic device" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 39 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 41 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 42 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 43 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 44 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 45 recites the limitation "the first electronic device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 46 recites the limitation "the first electronic device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 47 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 47 recites the limitation "the first electronic device" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 47 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 51 recites the limitation "the third electronic device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 52 recites the limitation "the first electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 53 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 54 recites the limitation "the second electronic device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims not referred to specifically above are rejected as depending upon a rejected claim. 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. Claim 56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter . As per claim 56 , it is rejected because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer-readable storage medium" to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (see paragraph s 00386-00388 ). The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. The Examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium". Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0053110) . Claim 55 : An application handoff method, applied to an application handoff system [ pars. 0123-0125 – “ A specific process of a task handoff method provided in the present invention is as follows, and referring to FIG. 1, an embodiment of the task handoff method provided in the present invention includes the following steps: ” … “ The second device displays the prompt information, where the prompt information is used to inform the user that the task executed on the first device may be handed off to the second device for execution. For example, content of an email is edited on a first device iPhone, and prompt information is displayed on a second device iPad by using a handoff function, where the prompt information is used to inform the user that a task of editing the email on the first device iPhone may be handed off to the second device iPad for execution. The handoff function may be triggered by performing any one of the following operations or a combination of multiple operations: tap, press, slide, rotation, twist, voice input, or voiceprint input. ” ] , wherein the method comprises: displaying, by the second device, an icon of a first target application and an identifier for indicating application handoff in response to reception of a first message sent by the first device, wherein the first message is used for indicating the second device to implement handoff for the first target application [ As per MPEP 2111.04, this limitation is not required as it is contingent on reception of a first message sent by the first device. ] ; when duration in which a focus of the first device is on the first target application exceeds a time threshold , removing the focus of the first device from the first target application [ As per MPEP 2111.04, this limitation is not required as it is contingent on a duration in which a focus of the first device is on the first target application exceed ing a time threshold . ] ; in response to any operation performed on the first target application on the first device, re-initiating, by the first device, a handoff function to the second device, and displaying, by the second device, the icon of the first target application and the identifier for indicating application handoff [ As per MPEP 2111.04, this limitation is not required as it is contingent on any operation being performed on the first target application. ] ; and displaying, by the second device, a first application interface of the first target application in response to a fourth operation performed on the icon, wherein the first application interface is related to a second application interface displayed when the first device sends the first message to the second device [ As per MPEP 2111.04, this limitation is not required as it is contingent on a fourth operation being performed on the icon. ] . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LARRY T MACKALL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1172 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Reginald G Bragdon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4204 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT LARRY T. MACKALL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2131 16 March 2026 /LARRY T MACKALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139