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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Chin does not teach “the target application comprises a second task, executing the second task on the first terminal device while the second terminal device executes the first task based on the task running information,” because Chin does not teach the relationship of “the first task is executed on the second terminal device specifically based on transferred task running information–information that the first terminal device transfers after assessing the second device’s capabilities.” Remarks at 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chin discloses “the information processing device 100 requests the selected device 10B to display the function 2. The device 10B receives the request, and then stores the functional information related to the function 2 in the storage unit and validates display of the function 2” (¶ 72). The Examiner finds that Chin’s “functional information,” regarding “function 2,” corresponds to the recited “task running information.” Therefore, since Chin teaches displaying (executing) function 2 on selected device 10B (second device), based on “functional information” (task running information), the Examiner finds a person having ordinary skill would have found the recited “the target application comprises a second task, executing the second task on the first terminal device while the second terminal device executes the first task based on the task running information” obvious in view of Chin.
Applicant further contends that “even though Chin describes two functions executing on two devices simultaneously, it does not teach the claimed relationship in which the second device execute the first task based on the task running information that was transferred by the first terminal device after determining that the second device meets an execution requirement.” Remarks at 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chin discloses “The device selection unit 106 selects a device 10 that transmits the function on the basis of the device information and functional information stored in the storage unit 110. This makes it possible to select the device 10 that can appropriately execute the transmission function” (¶ 64). The Examiner finds that selecting a device that can appropriately execute the transmission function teaches the recited “when at least one of the device information of the second terminal device meets an execution requirement of a first task,” as recited in claim 1.
Applicant contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine” Chin and Yang, because “Yang’s purpose is … a wholly different technical problem from Chin’s.” Remarks at 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2141.01(a) provides that “[a] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” Therefore, even if Yang solves a wholly different technical problem (arguendo), it would not be excluded as analogous art.
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.
The following title is suggested: TRANSFERRING A TASK OF A RUNNING APPLICATION TO A SECOND TERMINAL DEVICE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin (US 2016/0309312) and further in view of Yang (US 9,226,239).
Regarding claim 1, Chin teaches: An application running method performed at a first terminal device, comprising:
when running a target application (¶ 50, “the function processing unit 12 processes a plurality of functions during execution of one application”), obtaining at least one of device information of a second terminal device or a software execution environment of the second terminal device (¶ 55, “The device information acquisition unit 102 acquires device information individually from the plurality of devices 10 (the devices 10A to 10N illustrated in FIG. 1)”);
when at least one of the device information of the second terminal device or the software execution environment of the second terminal device meets an execution requirement of a first task of the target application (¶ 64, “The device selection unit 106 selects a device 10 that transmits the function on the basis of the device information and functional information stored in the storage unit 110. This makes it possible to select the device 10 that can appropriately execute the transmission function”), transferring task running information related to the first task to the second terminal device (¶ 138, “a function transmission unit configured to transmit the functional information acquired from the first device to a second device”), so that the second terminal device executes the first task based on the task running information without requiring the first terminal device to execute the first task (¶ 138, “in a manner that the second function among the first function and the second function that have been executed in the first device is executed in the second device”); and
when the target application comprises a second task, executing the second task on the first terminal device, while the second terminal device executes the first task based on the task running information (¶ 140, “in a manner that the first function is executed in the first device and the second function is executed in the second device;” and ¶ 72, “the information processing device 100 requests the selected device 10B to display the function 2. The device 10B receives the request, and then stores the functional information related to the function 2 in the storage unit and validates display of the function 2”).
Chin does not teach as clearly as Yang teaches: transferring task running information related to the first task to the second terminal device (col. 2:6-9, “If the wake-up call is one of the caller identification numbers, then the target wireless device may perform at least one scheduled task(s) that corresponds to the caller identification number”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of transferring task running information related to the first task to the second terminal device, as taught by Yang, in the same way to the first and second terminal devices, as taught by Chin. Both inventions are in the field of transferring tasks between devices, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method to “allow the control device to perform at least one task at the wireless device without user intervention at the wireless device,” as indicated by Yang (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Chin teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein before transferring the task running information related to the first task to the second terminal device, the method further comprises: receiving a first input of a user, wherein the first input indicates to transfer the task running information related to the first task to the second terminal device (¶ 71, “when the user performs a user operation for transmitting the function 2 to another device (for example, a mobile terminal such as a tablet or a mobile phone at hands of the user), the device 10A determines validation of the function 2, and transmits information related to the function 2 to the information processing device 100”).
Regarding claim 4, Chin teaches: The method according to claim 3, further comprising: presenting first selection information, wherein the first selection information indicates at least one task of the target application (¶ 85, “the device 10A transmits, to the information processing device 100, functional information related to the function that the user desires to transfer (step S106)”), and at least one of the device information or the software execution environment of the second terminal device meets an execution requirement of the at least one task (¶ 64, “The device selection unit 106 selects a device 10 that transmits the function on the basis of the device information and functional information stored in the storage unit 110. This makes it possible to select the device 10 that can appropriately execute the transmission function”); and receiving a first input fed back by the user based on the first selection information (¶ 71, “when the user performs a user operation for transmitting the function 2 to another device (for example, a mobile terminal such as a tablet or a mobile phone at hands of the user), the device 10A determines validation of the function 2, and transmits information related to the function 2 to the information processing device 100”), wherein the first input comprises the first task (¶ 71, “transmits information related to the function 2 to the information processing device 100”).
Regarding claim 5, Chin teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: transferring status data related to the first task to the second terminal device (¶ 85, “the device 10A transmits, to the information processing device 100, functional information related to the function that the user desires to transfer (step S106)”), wherein the status data is required when the second terminal device executes the first task (¶ 63, “the function validating information to be transmitted is file data of HTML and CSS that are necessary to display the function”).
Regarding claim 6, Chin teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal device and the second terminal device communicate with each other in at least one manner of near field communication, an Internet network, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, ultra-wideband, ZigBee, RFID, 4G, 5G, LoRa, SIGFOX, Z-Wave, or NB-IoT (¶ 127, “the communication device 215 may be a communication device adaptive to wireless LAN (Local Area Network) or LTE (Long Term Evolution), or a wired communication device that communicates by wires”).
Regarding claim 7, Chin teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the software execution environment comprises: component information indicating whether a running component of the target application is deployed on the second terminal device (¶ 63, “if a Web application is being executed in the device 10A, the function validating information to be transmitted is file data of HTML and CSS that are necessary to display the function, and the logic of the function is file data of a source code such as JavaScript”), and the running component is configured to have a capability of executing the first task (¶ 66, “transmits the functional information related to the transmission function to the transmission destination device so that the transmission function can be executed in the transmission destination device (the device selected by the device selection unit 106)”); and the execution requirement comprises: the running component is deployed on the second terminal device (¶ 64, “The device selection unit 106 selects a device 10 that transmits the function on the basis of the device information and functional information stored in the storage unit 110. This makes it possible to select the device 10 that can appropriately execute the transmission function”).
Regarding claim 8, Chin teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the device information comprises at least one of following information: power supply information, processor information, memory information, a transmission bandwidth, input device information, output device information, or a network load (¶ 56, “the device information includes information related to a device ID, a plurality of input schemes, and a plurality of output schemes”).
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches: The method according to claim 7, wherein the software execution environment comprises at least one of a device status of the second terminal device or a running status of the running component (col. 1:6-9, “When a mobile device with a cellular module, such as a smartphone, is not in use, it remains in sleeping state, with an application processor in hibernation, and/or WiFi connection and/or cellular data channel switched off to save power”); and
when the device status indicates that the second terminal device is powered off, in a sleep mode, in a screen-off mode, or in a screen-locked mode (col. 6:15, “At block 402, a wireless device is at sleeping state”), the task running information related to the first task comprises first indication information indicating at least one of following information:
the second terminal device is powered on, in the sleep mode, in the screen-off mode, or the screen-locked mode ends (col. 6:20-21, “the wireless device 104 is awoken by an incoming wake-up call”);
the second terminal device runs the running component (col. 5:18-19, “directs the task scheduler 314 to perform a pre-configured task”); and
the second terminal device executes the first task by using the running component (col. 5:19-22, “The task scheduler 314 may perform the pre-configured task(s) represented by a particular caller identification number that corresponds to the incoming call in the above example”);
or when the device status indicates that the second terminal device is started (col. 6:19-20, “determining a wake-up caller in the wireless device 104 is performed”), and the running status indicates that the second terminal device does not run the running component (col. 7:17-20, “the received wake-up call may be directed by the incoming call analyzer to a task scheduler interface (e.g., task scheduler 314) rather than being accepted by a user of the first or target wireless device”), the task running information related to the first task comprises second indication information indicating at least one of following information: the second terminal device runs the running component (col. 5:18-19, “directs the task scheduler 314 to perform a pre-configured task”), or the second terminal device executes the first task by using the running component (col. 5:19-22, “The task scheduler 314 may perform the pre-configured task(s) represented by a particular caller identification number that corresponds to the incoming call in the above example”).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches: The method according to claim 9, wherein when the device status indicates that the second terminal device is started, and the running status indicates that the second terminal device runs the running component, the task running information related to the first task comprises third indication information indicating that the second terminal device executes the first task by using the running component (col. 5:19-25, “The task scheduler 314 may perform the pre-configured task(s) represented by a particular caller identification number that corresponds to the incoming call in the above example” and “the task scheduler 314 may communicate with the control platform 312 of the control device 102 in performing the pre-configured task”).
Regarding claim 11, Chin teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining device information of a plurality of terminal devices connected to the first terminal device (¶ 55, “The device information acquisition unit 102 acquires device information individually from the plurality of devices 10 (the devices 10A to 10N illustrated in FIG. 1)”), wherein the plurality of terminal devices comprise the second terminal device (¶ 55, “the device information of each device 10 is registered to the information processing device 100”); and enabling a selection for the second terminal device in the plurality of terminal devices prior to transferring task running information of the first task to the second terminal device (¶ 141, “a device selection unit configured to select the second device that transmits the functional information related to the second function from among a plurality of devices capable of communication”).
Claims 12 and 14-20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1 and 3-11. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Chin teaches: The system according to claim 12, wherein the device information comprises at least one of following information: power supply information, processor information, memory information, a transmission bandwidth, input device information (¶ 56, “the device information includes information related to a device ID, a plurality of input schemes, and a plurality of output schemes”), output device information, or a network load.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin and Yang, as applied above, and further in view of Dodd (US 2011/0162018).
Regarding claim 22, Chin and Yang do not teach; however, Dodd discloses: the software execution environment comprises at least one of a device status of the second terminal device or a running status of the running component (¶ 109, “At step S604 the control point 41 automatically determines the power state of the selected destination device”); and
when the device status indicates that the second terminal device is powered off, in a sleep mode, in a screen-off mode, or in a screen-locked mode (¶ 109, “At step S604 the control point 41 automatically determines the power state of the selected destination device”), the task running information related to the first task comprises first indication information indicating at least one of following information: the second terminal device is powered on, in the sleep mode, in the screen-off mode, or the screen-locked mode ends (¶ 111, “In this case (S604b) it is necessary for a control point 41 to automatically wake the kitchen television 3 following steps S402 and S403 shown in FIG. 4 and discussed previously”); the second terminal device runs the running component; and the second terminal device executes the first task by using the running component (¶ 111, “the kitchen television may be powered on, but in a low power or sleep mode”); or when the device status indicates that the second terminal device is started, and the running status indicates that the second terminal device does not run the running component, the task running information related to the first task comprises second indication information indicating at least one of following information: the second terminal device runs the running component, or the second terminal device executes the first task by using the running component.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the software execution environment comprises at least one of a device status of the second terminal device or a running status of the running component; and when the device status indicates that the second terminal device is powered off, in a sleep mode, in a screen-off mode, or in a screen-locked mode, the task running information related to the first task comprises first indication information indicating at least one of following information: the second terminal device is powered on, in the sleep mode, in the screen-off mode, or the screen-locked mode ends; the second terminal device runs the running component; and the second terminal device executes the first task by using the running component; or when the device status indicates that the second terminal device is started, and the running status indicates that the second terminal device does not run the running component, the task running information related to the first task comprises second indication information indicating at least one of following information: the second terminal device runs the running component, or the second terminal device executes the first task by using the running component, as taught by Dodd, in the same way to the software execution environment, as taught by Chin and Yang. Both inventions move work running on a first device to a second device, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “the transfer of content to devices which are not in a full power state at the time the transfer is initiated by the user,” as indicated by Dodd (¶ 19).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
