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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 06/23/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are pending. Claims 7 and 14 are cancelled.
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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stattenfield et al. (US 20170347227 A1) hereinafter Stattenfield in view of Verma et al. (US 20210286758 A1) hereinafter Verma in further view of Kim et al. (US 20150286452 A1) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Stattenfield discloses
A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: (Stattenfield [0036] discloses processor, memory interface and [0050] discloses the memory storing instructions);
generate a prompt that displays the plurality of state features and enables selection of one or more preferred features from the plurality of state features (Stattenfield [0004] and [0018]-[0019] discloses a user may select data in an application on a first device and then a user can copy the selected data using a menu of a GUI of the first device. The GUI is displayed on a device where the user interacts with the device to select data, for example an image or a portion of an image);
receive a selection of one or more preferred features that comprise a subset of plurality of state features displayed on the prompt; (Stattenfield [0004] and [0019] discloses the second device may learn of the data on the first device’s pasteboard and receive the data to copy over to the second device. The data on the pasteboard consist of the features that were first selected on the first device to cut and then presented to the second device to copy/paste);
Stattenfield lacks explicitly
obtain a device state of a first device, the device state including a plurality of state features;
Verma teaches
obtain a device state of a first device, the device state including a plurality of state features; wherein each state feature is at least one of: an application, a profile, or a certificate installed on the first device (Verma [0032] – [0033] and [0038] discloses the second device receiving a migration data file from first device, the migration data consisting policy rules, software packages, user accounts, and personal settings. Further, the first device can create a new migration data file with only non-software files, such as profile settings and UEMS policies, where the second device can apply profile settings and UEMS polices. Further on [0025], the first device with a management service through portal application can provide poral application with an authorization certificate so that when portal applications requests access to UEMS resources from the server, portal application can provide the authorization certificate which verifies that the user device is authorized to access the UEMS resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Stattenfield to incorporate the teachings of Verma to “obtain a device state of a first device, the device state including a plurality of state features” in order to efficiently gather all the information needed for the transfer to the second device.
Stattenfield in view of Verma lacks explicitly
and push the subset of the plurality of state features to a second device while excluding one or more unselected state features from the plurality of state features from being pushed to the second device.
Kim teaches
and push the subset of the plurality of state features to a second device while excluding one or more unselected state features from the plurality of state features from being pushed to the second device. (Kim [0071]-[0073] and [0078] discloses cloning files from one device to another, where the user may select all or some functions to clone. Then the data including the selected functions may be transmitted to the image forming device where the file generating unit generates a cloning file including only functions selected by the user and transmits the generated cloning file to the mobile device, and thus would exclude the unselected features from the generated cloning file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Stattenfield in view of Verma to incorporate the teachings of Kim to “and push the subset of the plurality of state features to a second device while excluding one or more unselected state features from the plurality of state features from being pushed to the second device” in order to transfer over only the features the user wants from their previous device, allowing a more efficient data migration.
Regarding claim 2, Stattenfield discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the computing device to obtain the device state in response to receipt of a clone request to clone the device state onto the second device. (Stattenfield [0027] - [0028] discloses that the second device determines all types of available data that are to be requested. Then, the second device may send a request for the determined data to first device. Further, the second device may send a request for pasteboard data of a specific type, as described previously as the select features and device state of the first device. The first device may receive this request and in response to the request, initiate transfer of requested data from the pasteboard).
Regarding claim 3, Stattenfield discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least:
Stattenfield lacks explicitly
receive a registration request for the second device, the registration request comprising at least a client identifier; and
register the second device to a client account associated with the client identifier and the first device.
Verma discloses
receive a registration request for the second device, the registration request comprising at least a client identifier; and (Verma [0007] and [0029] – [0030] discloses establishing a connection in order for a user to initiate a device migration. The portal application can cause the second device to prepare to receive a direct connection request from the first device where then the second device can receive device migration user credentials, thus demonstrating a client identifier);
register the second device to a client account associated with the client identifier and the first device. (Verma [0007] and [0030] discloses after the connection is established, the first device encrypts a password/pin and sends it to the second device. After the second device can authenticate using the user credentials, the second device is then recognized as belong to the same user and unencrypts the password/pin using the encryption key. This process enrolls the second user device for the portal application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Stattenfield to incorporate the teachings of Verma to “receive a registration request for the second device, the registration request comprising at least a client identifier; and register the second device to a client account associated with the client identifier and the first device” in order to efficiently pair the devices together under the same account to perform the cloning of the devices.
Regarding claim 4, Stattenfield discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least send to the first device the prompt to select one or more preferred features. (Stattenfield [0018] – [0019] discloses a user interacting with a tablet to select data. The selection may prompt the tablet to present a menu with options for the user to select data for the pasteboard. This is done by using a menu of the GUI of the first device).
Regarding claim 5, Stattenfield discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least send to the second device the prompt to select one or more preferred features. (Stattenfield [0018] – [0019] discloses after the data is copied on the first device, the first device advertises the availability of the data, where the second device may receive the advertisement and generate a prompt asking the user whether the data should be pasted onto the second device),
Regarding claim 6, Stattenfield discloses
The system of claim 1 wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least:
Stattenfield lacks explicitly
receive an installation success notification indicating that the subset of the plurality of state features was successfully installed on the second device; and
send a cloning success notification to the first device.
Verma teaches
receive an installation success notification indicating that the one or more preferred features were successfully installed on the second device; and (Verma [0064] discloses the second device can notify server of the successful enrollment and migration)
send a cloning success notification to the first device. (Verma [0064] discloses after successfully installing all applications and copying all data files from the migration data file, second device can notify first device and then terminate the connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Stattenfield to incorporate the teachings of Verma to “receive an installation success notification indicating that the one or more preferred features were successfully installed on the second device; and send a cloning success notification to the first device” in order to ensure the cloning process was successful, avoiding potential errors on the new device.
Regarding claim 8, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15, it’s directed to a non-transitory medium having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, it’s directed to a non-transitory medium having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, it’s directed to a non-transitory medium having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18, it’s directed to a non-transitory medium having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to a non-transitory medium having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, it’s directed to a non-transitory medium having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Response to Amendment
Response to 103 remarks:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied or has been combined with an additional reference in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights