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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the amendment filed on March 14, 2026. Claims 1, and 20 are amended. Claims 12-18 are canceled.
Claims 1-11, and 19-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11, and 19-27 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, and 19-27 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In these claims applicants mention in the first limitation, “generating cross-ecosystem sharing information of the device to be shared based on a target application;”, then in the last limitation, “the cross-ecosystem sharing information includes basic address information of the target cloud, device information of the device to be shared, and access credentials” which is generally narrative and indefinite with the invention. Applicants do not point out clearly which options include in the present invention by these vague features of the claim limitations. Any ordinary skill in the art could not understand what the intent meaning of the claim invention is by using these ambiguous and contradictory features of “generating cross-ecosystem sharing information based on a target application;” then “the cross-ecosystem sharing information includes basic address information of the target cloud, device information of the device to be shared, and access credentials”. Any ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand what is the meets and bounds of the claim limitations by using the conflicting features like “generating cross-ecosystem sharing information based on a target application” and “the cross-ecosystem sharing information includes basic address information of the target cloud, device information of the device to be shared, and access credentials”. Examiner fails to interpret what is the basis of generating or including the cross-ecosystem sharing information (is it target application or address information of the target cloud, device information of the device to be shared, and access credentials)? Therefore, these limitations with these ambiguous terms are indefinite with the present application. The examiner will interpret these terms and limitations with the regarding claims as best understood for applying the appropriate art for rejection purposes. Appropriate correction needs to overcome the rejection.
Claims 1-11, and 19-27 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In these claims applicants mention, in the first limitation, “the device to be shared belonging to a target ecosystem”, then, in the second limitation, “the device to be shared belonging to different ecosystems” which is generally narrative and indefinite with the invention. Applicants do not point out clearly which options include in the present invention by these conflicting features of the limitations. Any ordinary skill in the art could not understand what the intent meaning of the claim invention is by using these ambiguous and contradictory features “the device to be shared belonging to a target ecosystem” or “the device to be shared belonging to different ecosystems”. Similarly, examiner fail to understand what is the meets and bounds of the claim limitations by using the conflicting features. Which feature “belonging to a target ecosystem” or “belonging to different ecosystems” examiner should consider as particular to “the device to be shared”? Therefore, these limitations with these ambiguous terms are indefinite with the present application. The examiner will interpret these terms and limitations with the regarding claims as best understood for applying the appropriate art for rejection purposes. Appropriate correction needs to overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 1-11, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorodyansky (US Publication 2017/0147201) hereafter Gorodyansky, in view of Lewis et al. (US Publication 2020/0244644) hereafter Lewis.
8. As per claims 1, and 19-20, Gorodyansky discloses a cross-ecosystem device management and control methods, a non-transitory storage medium, and an electronic device comprising: generating cross-ecosystem sharing information of the device to be shared based on a target application, the target application and the device to be shared belonging to a target ecosystem (paragraphs: 32-34, wherein it emphasizes downloading a keyboard software application as a target application and receiving the message typed by the user a selfie, or an existing or newly recorded video or any other type of content file as a cross-platform sharing information to be shared. The keyboard software application which is download in the device belonging to a target ecosystem); transmitting the cross-ecosystem sharing information across applications to an application to be shared, the application to be shared and the device to be shared belonging to different ecosystems (paragraphs: 32, 39, and 45, wherein it elaborates sending the sharing information (message) across multiple software applications (an email application, a short messaging service (SMS) application, a social networking application, such as Facebook or Twitter, a communication application such as Skype and the like) which are belonging to different ecosystems); wherein the application to be shared accesses a target cloud of the target ecosystem without negotiation based on the cross-ecosystem sharing information, so as to perform a cross-ecosystem management and control on the device to be shared through the target cloud (paragraphs: 32, and 42-44, wherein it deliberates the receiving email application, a short messaging service (SMS) application, a social networking application, such as Facebook or Twitter, a communication application such as Skype and the like would, in turn, transmit the received message to its intended destination (target cloud) without negotiating based on the cross platform sharing information and thus perform a cross-platform management and control on the device. The keyboard application may be substantially simultaneously posted to multiple social networks or other resources available on the Internet, such as online (cloud) storage systems, such as Dropbox and thus to be shared through the target cloud). Although, Gorodyansky discusses about sharing the cross-ecosystem location of the target cloud device information and associated credential information, he does not specifically discloses sharing information includes basic address information of the target cloud. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses wherein sharing information includes basic address information of the target cloud, device information of the device to be shared, and access credentials (paragraphs: 3, 8-9, and 14-15).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses the claimed limitation of sharing information includes basic address information of the target cloud. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses wherein sharing information includes basic address information of the target cloud, device information of the device to be shared, and access credentials (paragraphs: 3, 8-9, and 14-15).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Lewis’s teachings of sharing information includes basic address information of the target cloud with the teachings of Gorodyansky, for the purpose of effectively managing and controlling the sharing information among the cross platforms.
9. As per claim 2, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein prior to the transmitting of the cross-ecosystem sharing information across applications to the application to be shared, the method further comprises: displaying an authorization prompt content for information sharing through the target application; and receiving response information of the authorization prompt content to determine whether to transmit the cross-ecosystem sharing information across applications based on the response information (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 37-38).
10. As per claims 3, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein the cross-ecosystem sharing information comprises basic address information of the target cloud, device information of the device to be shared and access credentials; the step that the application to be shared accesses the target cloud of the target ecosystem without negotiation based on the cross-ecosystem sharing information so as to perform the cross-ecosystem management and control on the device to be shared through the target cloud comprising: obtaining, by the application to be shared, an TSL model and pre-agreed path information, and constructing an access address according to the path information and the basic address information, and constructing access parameters according to a pre-agreed format based on the device information, the access credentials and the TSL model; and based on the access address and the access parameters, sending a target instruction to the target cloud, so that the target cloud manages and controls the device to be shared (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 35-36).
11. As per claim 4, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein the cross-ecosystem sharing information comprises basic address information of the target cloud, device information of the device to be shared and access credentials; the step that the application to be shared accesses the target cloud of the target ecosystem without negotiation based on the cross-ecosystem sharing information so as to perform the cross-ecosystem management and control on the device to be shared through the target cloud comprising: the application to be shared transmitting the cross-ecosystem sharing information to the belonging cloud of the ecosystem to which the application to be shared belongs, wherein the belonging cloud obtains the TSL model and the pre-agreed path information, constructs an access address according to the path information and the basic address information, and constructs access parameters according to a pre-agreed format based on the device information, the access credentials and the TSL model, and the belonging cloud sends a target instruction to the target cloud based on the access address and the access parameters, so that the target cloud manages and controls the device to be shared (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 41-42, 46).
12. As per claim 5, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein the step of transmitting the cross-ecosystem sharing information across applications to the application to be shared comprises: displaying an application list based on the target application; determining the application to be shared selected from the application list; and transmitting the cross-ecosystem sharing information to the application to be shared using a cross-application protocol through the target application (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 31-32).
13. As per claim 6, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein the step of transmitting the cross-ecosystem sharing information across applications to the application to be shared comprises: obtaining an information transmission content containing the cross-ecosystem sharing information based on the target application; and sending the information transmission content to a target terminal through the target application, so that the target terminal opens the application to be shared based on a target protocol and transmits the information transmission content to the application to be shared (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 34, 39).
14. As per claim 7, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein the step of transmitting the cross-ecosystem sharing information across applications to the application to be shared comprises: obtaining an information transmission content containing the cross-ecosystem sharing information based on the target application, and copying the information transmission content to a target location so that the application to be shared obtains the information transmission content from the target position when a target object opens the application to be shared (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 40, and 43).
15. As per claim 8, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein the application list lists all applications in the system that that meet a same criterion for selection by the user, and the manner in which the applications are listed in the application list comprises at least one of the following methods: listing applications that declare a same URL scheme; listing applications that declare they can open a same type of file; listing applications that declare a sharing control that contains a same keyword (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 44-45).
16. As per claim 9, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein the step of transmitting the cross-ecosystem sharing information to the application to be shared using the cross-application protocol through the target application comprises: converting the cross-ecosystem sharing information in the target application into a message accepted by the application to be shared through the cross-application protocol and transmitting the message accepted by the application to be shared to the application to be shared (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 47-48).
17. As per claim 10, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein the determination of whether to transmit the cross-ecosystem sharing information across applications based on the response information comprises: determining to transmit the cross-ecosystem sharing information across applications if the response information is agreed; and determining that the cross-ecosystem sharing information can't be transmitted across applications if the response information is disagreed (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 49-50).
18. As per claim 11, Gorodyansky and in view of Lewis discloses the method, wherein, after the displaying of the authorization prompt content for information sharing through the target application, the method further comprises: generating the response information in response to that the user clicks an authorization response control in a display interface (Gorodyansky, paragraphs: 36, and 45).
19. Claims 21-27 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-8. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-8 apply equally as well to claims 21-27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Li (US Patent 11,693,642): discusses cross-platform application deployment, which is based on a Topology and Orchestration Specific for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) template and is compatible with application deployment on other platforms. This solution supports cross-platform application deployment on both a TOSCA platform and a non-TOSCA platform. By adding information about a target platform and application deployment information required for application deployment on the target platform to a deployment template, an upper server performs parsing and sends the application deployment information to the target platform, thereby implementing cross-platform application deployment on the TOSCA platform and the non-TOSCA platform by using one universal template.
Breaux et al (US Publication 2023/0156569): elaborates that an application executing in a mobile device detects an event to trigger context-based management of the mobile device. A usage context associated with the mobile device is determined. One or more policies to enforce on the mobile device are identified as a function of the usage context. The application enforces the one or more policies on the mobile device.
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 FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights