DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the correspondence filed on 04/08/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/26/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered. The following are the applicant arguments recited in the Remarks followed by Examiner's response:
Applicant argues that because Robbin is required to store the quality settings in association with an identifier for the respective media items, it is submitted that Robbin does not describe, and would not be modified to include, causing a first setting of a second smart device to be stored in a datastore in association with a unique user identifier and determining via use of the same unique user identifier [i.e., the identifier to which the stored settings are linked] that an authorization exists to synchronize a first smart device as now claimed. For at least this reason, it is submitted that the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 must be withdrawn. (Remarks, pg. 6)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Besides that it doesn’t actually change the functionality of the method by labelling it a unique user identifier (i.e. the same synchronization process is able to be performed), the device in this case is also used by a user. Essentially, the device identifier also identifies the user.
Examiner encourages applicant to further amend the claims to distinguish the invention and clarify the difference with support by the specification.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robbin et al. (US Pub No. 2003/0079038 A1, referred to as Robbin).
Regarding claim 1, Robbin anticipates,
1. A method for synchronizing a first smart device with a second smart device, comprising:
causing a first setting of the second smart device to be stored in a datastore in association with a unique user identifier; and (Robbin: Fig. 2; [0031]; media content can be played by a media player (first smart device with a unique identifier) in accordance with quality settings established for the media content at the host computer (first settings are established and stored). In one implementation, the quality settings can be established for the media content on a media item by media item basis. [0070]; a synchronized device identifier (unique identifier), which is stored at the host computer (second smart device). [0034]; the media player 102 can be a music player (e.g., MP3 player), a game player, a video player, a video recorder, a camera, an image viewer and the like. These devices are generally battery operated and highly portable so as to allow a user (the media player is used by a user, the identifier for the player is not different from identifying the user in functionality) to listen to music, play games or video, record video or take pictures wherever the user travels.)
in response to determining a presence of the first smart device: (Robbin: Fig. 8; [0070]; determines whether a media player (first smart device) is connected.) determining via use of the unique user identifier that an authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device; (Robbin: Fig. 8; [0070]; once the decision 802 determines that a media player has been connected, a media player identifier is retrieved 804 from the media player. Then, a synchronized device identifier (unique identifier), which is stored at the host computer, is compared 806 with the media player identifier (authorization).) determining that a second setting of the first smart device is to be synchronized with the first setting of the second smart device; and synchronizing the second setting of the first smart device to match the first setting of the second smart device. (Robbin: Fig. 8; [0071]; a decision 808 determines whether the synchronized device identifier matches the media player identifier. When the decision 808 determines that the synchronized device identifier does match the media player identifier, the media items are synchronized 810 between the host computer (second smart device) and the media player (first smart device). [0031]; media content can be played by a media player in accordance with quality settings established for the media content at the host computer (settings are synchronized from the second device). In one implementation, the quality settings can be established for the media content on a media item by media item basis.)
Regarding claim 2, Robbin further anticipates,
2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein a device discovery process is utilized to determine the presence of the first smart device. (Robbin: Fig. 8; [0071]; when the decision 802 determines that a media player is not connected, then the decision 802 causes the automatic synchronization processing 800 to wait for a media player to be connected (discovery process).)
Regarding claim 4, Robbin further anticipates,
4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein a device identifier associated with the first smart device is also used when determining that the authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device. (Robbin: Fig. 8; [0070]; a synchronized device identifier, which is stored at the host computer, is compared 806 with the media player identifier (device identifier authorization).)
Regarding claim 6, Robbin further anticipates,
6. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein a device identifier associated with the second smart device is also used when determining that the authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device. (Robbin: Fig. 8; [0070]; a synchronized device identifier (device identifier), which is stored at the host computer (second smart device), is compared 806 with the media player identifier (authorization).)
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.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin in view of Shahbazi (US Pub No. 2007/0143824 A1, referred to as Shahbazi).
Regarding claim 3, Robbin discloses,
3. The method as recited in claim 1,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Shahbazi teaches,
wherein a user manually indicated the presence of the first smart device. (Shahbazi: [0003]; generally, the synchronization process is activated either by detecting a mobile device on a cradle or by the manual press of a button. The synchronization process proceeds to synchronize data for several different applications that run on the mobile devices with data for corresponding application on other computers.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Shahbazi into the teachings of Robbin with a motivation to make a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, i.e. synchronization process manual activation instead of activation by detection.
Regarding claim 7, Robbin discloses,
7. The method as recited in claim 1,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Shahbazi teaches,
wherein a user identifier associated with the second smart device is also used when determining that the authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device. (Shahbazi: [0034]; the information contained in the node security profile 208 can include information that alone or in combination identifies an authorized or unauthorized computing node, an authorized or unauthorized user, an authorized or unauthorized mobile device, an authorized or unauthorized central station, or an authorized or unauthorized network or resource, such as storage devices or a camera. The identity of the mobile device and computing node may be specified by physical address, serial number, model number, device type, server, network resource ID, software license number (registration number), user ID, etc. The authorized or unauthorized computing node can be specified relative to mobile device parameters, such as device type, etc. For example, certain computing nodes 102 may be authorized to synchronize data with certain specified mobile device types, but not authorized to synchronize data with other device types, and vice versa.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Shahbazi into the teachings of Robbin with a motivation to enforce necessary security parameters to mobile devices by determining mobile devices with unique identity (Shahbazi: abstract and [0034]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin in view of Kiang et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0268999 A1, referred to as Kiang).
Regarding claim 5, Robbin discloses,
5. The method as recited in claim 1,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Kiang teaches,
wherein a user identifier associated with the first smart device is used when determining that the authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device. (Kiang: [0056]; when a content access or synchronization request is detected by the host server 500, the security enforcement engine 515 enforces security mechanisms by determining whether the requested device has been authorized or can be authorized. The request can include a device identifier (e.g., CPU ID, or any hardware or software ID uniquely identifying a device) retrieved from a synchronization or mobile client/application which can be used by the engine 515 to determine whether the device has been authorized. The user identifier 518 (user identifier), which can also be included in the access request or synchronization request to identify the associated account/ enterprise to determine the relevant security settings (e.g., via the account manager 505).)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kiang into the teachings of Robbin with a motivation to facilitate device pinning capabilities for cloud-based services by including various identifiers to authorize synchronization (Kiang abstract and [0056]).
Claims 8-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin in view of Mityagin et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0214668 A1, referred to as Mityagin).
Regarding claim 8, Robbin discloses,
8. The method as recited in claim 1,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Mityagin teaches,
wherein the datastore resides on a third smart device adapted to communicate with both the first smart device and the second smart device. (Mityagin: Fig. 2; [0064]; client devices 102s (third smart device). [0011]: shared folders.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Mityagin into the teachings of Robbin with a motivation to allow synchronization of a plurality of client devices by using shared folders to communicate over a local area network (Mityagin abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Robbin discloses,
9. The method as recited in claim 1,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Mityagin teaches,
wherein the datastore resides on a remote server associated with a third smart device adapted to communicate with both the first smart device and the second smart device. (Mityagin: Fig. 2; [0064]; gateway 204 (remote server), client devices 102s (third smart device). [0011]: shared folders.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Robbin and Mityagin as set forth in claim 8 is equally applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Robbin and Mityagin discloses,
10. The method as recited in claim 8,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Mityagin teaches,
wherein the third smart device comprises a smart watch. (Mityagin: Fig. 2; [0038]; a variety of different client devices, such as desktop computers; mobile computers; mobile communications devices, e.g. mobile phones, smartphones, tablets; smart televisions; set-top boxes; and/or any other network enabled computing devices.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Robbin and Mityagin as set forth in claim 8 is equally applicable to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Robbin and Mityagin discloses,
11. The method as recited in claim 8,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Mityagin teaches,
wherein the third smart device comprises a smart phone. (Mityagin: Fig. 2; [0038]; a variety of different client devices, such as desktop computers; mobile computers; mobile communications devices, e.g. mobile phones, smartphones, tablets; smart televisions; set-top boxes; and/or any other network enabled computing devices.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Robbin and Mityagin as set forth in claim 8 is equally applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Robbin and Mityagin discloses,
12. The method as recited in claim 9,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Mityagin teaches,
wherein the third smart device comprises a smart watch. (Mityagin: Fig. 2; [0038]; a variety of different client devices, such as desktop computers; mobile computers; mobile communications devices, e.g. mobile phones, smartphones, tablets; smart televisions; set-top boxes; and/or any other network enabled computing devices.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Robbin and Mityagin as set forth in claim 8 is equally applicable to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Robbin and Mityagin discloses,
13. The method as recited in claim 10,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Mityagin teaches,
wherein the third smart device comprises a smart phone. (Mityagin: Fig. 2; [0038]; a variety of different client devices, such as desktop computers; mobile computers; mobile communications devices, e.g. mobile phones, smartphones, tablets; smart televisions; set-top boxes; and/or any other network enabled computing devices.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Robbin and Mityagin as set forth in claim 8 is equally applicable to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Robbin and Mityagin discloses,
14. The method as recited in claim 8,
Robbin further discloses,
wherein a device identifier associated with the third smart device is also used when determining that the authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device. (Robbin: Fig. 8; [0070]; a synchronized device identifier, which is stored at the host computer, is compared 806 with the media player identifier (device identifier authorization).)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Robbin and Mityagin discloses,
16. The method as recited in claim 9,
Robbin further discloses,
wherein a device identifier associated with the third smart device is also used when determining that the authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device. (Robbin: Fig. 8; [0070]; a synchronized device identifier, which is stored at the host computer, is compared 806 with the media player identifier (device identifier authorization).)
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin, in view of Mityagin and further in view of Kiang.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Robbin and Mityagin discloses,
15. The method as recited in claim 8,
The combination of Robbin and Mityagin does not explicitly disclose, however Kiang teaches,
wherein a user identifier associated with the third smart device is also used when determining that the authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device. (Kiang: [0056]; when a content access or synchronization request is detected by the host server 500, the security enforcement engine 515 enforces security mechanisms by determining whether the requested device has been authorized or can be authorized. The request can include a device identifier (e.g., CPU ID, or any hardware or software ID uniquely identifying a device) retrieved from a synchronization or mobile client/application which can be used by the engine 515 to determine whether the device has been authorized. The user identifier 518 (user identifier), which can also be included in the access request or synchronization request to identify the associated account/ enterprise to determine the relevant security settings (e.g., via the account manager 505).)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kiang into the combination of Robbin and Mityagin with a motivation to facilitate device pinning capabilities for cloud-based services by including various identifiers to authorize synchronization (Kiang abstract and [0056]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Robbin and Mityagin discloses,
17. The method as recited in claim 9,
The combination of Robbin and Mityagin does not explicitly disclose, however Kiang teaches,
wherein a user identifier associated with the third smart device is also used when determining that the authorization exists to synchronize the first smart device. (Kiang: [0056]; when a content access or synchronization request is detected by the host server 500, the security enforcement engine 515 enforces security mechanisms by determining whether the requested device has been authorized or can be authorized. The request can include a device identifier (e.g., CPU ID, or any hardware or software ID uniquely identifying a device) retrieved from a synchronization or mobile client/application which can be used by the engine 515 to determine whether the device has been authorized. The user identifier 518 (user identifier), which can also be included in the access request or synchronization request to identify the associated account/ enterprise to determine the relevant security settings (e.g., via the account manager 505).)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kiang into the combination of Robbin and Mityagin with a motivation to facilitate device pinning capabilities for cloud-based services by including various identifiers to authorize synchronization (Kiang abstract and [0056]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin in view of Park (US Pub No. 2017/0139664 A1, referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 18, Robbin discloses,
18. The method as recited in claim 1,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Park teaches,
further comprising subsequently updating the first setting of the second smart device stored in the datastore in response to a change in the synchronized second setting of the first smart device. (Park: [0094]; first, if at operation S1300 the controller 403 detects that the external display apparatuses 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d are connected to the output ports 201a, 201b, 201e and 201d, the controller 403 determines the connected external display apparatuses 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d as the slave display apparatuses 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d, and at operation S1301 transmits the master setting information to the stored setting information. At operation S1302 it is determined whether the error information is received from the slave display apparatuses 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d. If it is determined that the error information is received from the slave display apparatuses 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d, at operation S1303 the controller 403 updates the stored setting information with the received error information. [0095]; as described above, according to an exemplary embodiment, the setting information received from the master display apparatus is used to update the stored setting information, and the setting information is transmitted to the slave display apparatus based on the stored setting information, thereby easily and accurately synchronizing the setting information between the plurality of display apparatuses that are sequentially connected together (use master device information to update stored settings and synchronize with slave devices).)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Park into the teachings of Robbin with a motivation to allow synchronization of setting information among the devices easily and accurately by implementing the master and slave scheme (Park abstract and [0094-0095]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Robbin and Park discloses,
19. The method as recited in claim 18,
Robbin does not explicitly disclose, however Park teaches,
further comprising determining that the second smart device is a master smart device before updating the first setting of the second smart device stored in the datastore in response to the change in the synchronized second setting of the first smart device. (Park: [0095]; as described above, according to an exemplary embodiment, the setting information received from the master display apparatus is used to update the stored setting information, and the setting information is transmitted to the slave display apparatus based on the stored setting information, thereby easily and accurately synchronizing the setting information between the plurality of display apparatuses that are sequentially connected together.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Robbin and Park as set forth in claim 18 is equally applicable to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jay, Michael et al. US-PGPUB US 20050109828 A1 Method for storing personalized computing device setting information and user session information to enable a user to transport such settings between computing devices
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 extension fee 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 KA SHAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1569. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 9AM-5:30PM EST Alternate Fridays.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/KA SHAN CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights