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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 03/08/2024. Applicant has filed a certified copy of the foreign priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEIDUM FOR RUNNING AN APPLICATION USING FIRST AND SECOND APPLICATION PLATFORMS.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: separate elements or steps of the claim should be separated by a line indentation e.g., see MPEP 608.01(m). For example, for claim 1 Examiner suggests the following types of indentations:
A method for running an application, comprising:
receiving …
sending …
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marinov (US 2024/0211371).
Regarding claim 1, a method for running an application, comprising:
receiving, from a terminal device, a first request to launch a client of a target application, wherein the client is deployed in a first application platform (Figs. 7a, 7b, 8, 1, [0152, 0137, 0148-0149], a user is using a client device to access an interface presented by a first server i.e., user-accessed application server; the first server is accessed using a first user account i.e., user-accessed application user account; when the user attempts to access a feature associated with embedded application functionality, the client device sends a request, which in turn causes the first server to establish and utilize a connection with a second server i.e., embedded application server, which manages the embedded application; see also [0091], a user can select a link associated with the embedded application in an interface presented by the first server, and this launches the embedded application data i.e., a second application embedded within the integrated interface/first application; see also [0164, 0158, 0175], steps 720, 702 in Fig. 7A, steps 760 and 752 in Fig. 7B, a user request from the client device i.e., interactions in the interface with a representation mapped to an embedded app data object, causes embedded application data to be presented or updated by the first server using data from the second server)
sending a first message to a second application platform corresponding to the target application to instruct the target application to be run at the second application platform, wherein the second application platform has a container for running the target application (steps 722, 724, 704-716 in Fig. 7a, steps 754-758 and 762-766 in Fig 7b, [0151], the first server may establish a connection to a second server, which involves transmitting information e.g., a second account or embedded app user account identifier/credentials, identification information for the client device, a first account or user-accessed application user account identifier etc.; [0158-0159], the first server requests embedded app data objects from the second server, where the request can include information including the embedded app user account, the user access application user account etc.; inherently, the second server stores embedded application data in some form of container, such as a database or memory)
receiving, from the second application platform, running data of the target application (steps 716, 718, 722 of Fig. 7a and steps 758 and 766 of Fig. 7b, [0161, 0163, 0165-0167], the second server provides embedded app data to the first server; the embedded app data is then rendered in the interface presented by the first server; similarly, the first server can request updating of embedded app data, and the second server generates the updates, which the first server presents in the interface) and
sending the running data to the terminal device to enable the terminal device to draw a running interface of the target application based on the running data (steps 716, 718, 722 of Fig. 7a and steps 758 and 766 of Fig. 7b, [0161, 0163, 0165-0167, 0173, 0176-0178], the second server provides embedded app data to the first server; the embedded app data is then rendered in the interface presented by the first server; similarly, the first server can request updating of embedded app data, and the second server generates the updates, which the first server presents in the interface).
Regarding claim 2, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Marinov also teaches
receiving, from the terminal device, operation data, wherein the operation data is generated based on a user operation on the running interface; and
sending the operation data to the second application platform to enable the second application platform to control running of the target application based on the operation data (steps 720-724 in Fig. 7a, steps 760-766 in Fig. 7b, [0164-0169, 0173, 0176], a user may interact with a representation in the interface associated with embedded app data, which can trigger an update of that embedded app data; for example, as noted in [0164-0167], a user may interact with the interface to adjust a particular embedded app data object; the first server conveys the particular app data object to the second server via the first server, and the second server then updates the data objects based on the user input).
Regarding claim 3, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Marinov also teaches wherein sending the first message to the second application platform corresponding to the target application comprises:
determining, based on the first request, a first account of a user in the first application platform;
determining a second account corresponding to the first account in the second application
platform; and
sending the first message to the second application platform, wherein the first message indicates at least the second account (steps 722, 724, 704-716 in Fig. 7a, steps 754-758 and 762-766 in Fig 7b, [0151], the first server may establish a connection to a second server, which involves transmitting information e.g., a second account i.e., embedded app user account identifier/credentials, identification information for the client device, a first account i.e., user-accessed application user account identifier etc.; [0158-0159], the first server requests embedded app data objects from the second server, where the request can include information including the embedded app user account, the user access application user account etc.)
Regarding claim 4, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 3. Marinov also teaches wherein determining the second account corresponding to the first account in the second application platform comprises:
obtaining stored account association information; and
determining, in response to the account association information comprising an entry corresponding to the first account, the second account corresponding to the first account based on the account association information (steps 722, 724, 704-716 in Fig. 7a, steps 754-758 and 762-766 in Fig 7b, [0151], the first server may establish a connection to a second server, which involves transmitting information e.g., a second account i.e., embedded app user account identifier/credentials, identification information for the client device, a first account i.e., user-accessed application user account identifier etc.; [0158-0159], the first server requests embedded app data objects from the second server, where the request can include information including the embedded app user account, the user access application user account etc.; inherently, to enable the above operations, there is a data record/entry of the first account as well as data that associated the first and second accounts).
Regarding claim 6, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Marinov also teaches wherein the first message comprises description information
associated with the terminal device ((steps 722, 724, 704-716 in Fig. 7a, steps 754-758 and 762-766 in Fig 7b, [0151], the first server may establish a connection to a second server, which involves transmitting information e.g., a second account i.e., embedded app user account identifier/credentials, identification information for the client device, a first account i.e., user-accessed application user account identifier etc.; [0158-0159], the first server requests embedded app data objects from the second server, where the request can include information including the embedded app user account, the user access application user account etc.)
Regarding claim 10, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Marinov also teaches the first application platform is comprised in a management device (Figs. 7a, 7b, 8, 1, [0152, 0137, 0148-0149], a user is using a client device to access an interface presented by a first server i.e., user-accessed application server).
Regarding claim 11, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Marinov also teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processing unit; and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions ([0068] describes a processor, memory and instructions).
Regarding claim 12, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11. Claim 12 also corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11. Claim 13 also corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. Claim 14 also corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11. Claim 16 also corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Marinov also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program is executable by a processor to implement acts ([0068] describes a processor, memory and instructions).
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 of this title, 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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinov, as applied in claims 4 and 14, and further in view of Poliashenko (US 2012/0291114).
Regarding claim 5, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 4. Marinov also teaches sending a second message sending a second message to the terminal device to instruct the terminal device to present a target interface (steps 718-720 in Fig. 7a, steps 758-766 in Fig. 7b, [0173, 0174], in Marinov, the client device interacts with an interface presented by the first server i.e., the first server sends messages to the client device to present the interface, with any updates to elements or data in the interface).
However, Marinov does not expressly disclose wherein determining the second account corresponding to the first account in the second application platform comprises: in response to the account association information not comprising an entry corresponding to the first account, sending the second message to present the target interface; and determining the second account corresponding to the first account based on a third message obtained from the terminal device, wherein the third message is determined based on an operation of the user on the target interface.
In the same field of endeavor, Poliashenko teaches wherein determining the second account corresponding to the first account in the second application platform comprises:
in response to the account association information not comprising an entry corresponding to the first account, sending the second message to present the target interface; and
determining the second account corresponding to the first account based on a third message obtained from the terminal device, wherein the third message is determined based on an
operation of the user on the target interface (Fig. 3, [0041-0045, 0035], a user is interacting with a first application and indicates a desire to access a second application; the system determines whether a mapping already exists between the first application account and the second application account; when it is determined none exists, the system challenges the user and requests inputting of login credentials; the user then provides the credentials to the system, which stores them and an associated mapping)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein determining the second account corresponding to the first account in the second application platform comprises: in response to the account association information not comprising an entry corresponding to the first account, sending the second message to present the target interface; and determining the second account corresponding to the first account based on a third message obtained from the terminal device, wherein the third message is determined based on an operation of the user on the target interface as suggested in Poliashenko into Marinov because Marinov and Poliashenko pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Marinov and Poliashenko pertain to systems where a user indicates a desire to access a second application, associated with a second account, within a first application, associated with a first account. In Poliashenko, the system checks to see if there is a known association between the first and second accounts, and if not, the system request login credentials. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Marinov to expedite the processing of credential to access a second application e.g., see Poliashenko Fig. 3, [0041-0045, 0035].
Regarding claim 15, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 14. Claim 15 also corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinov, as applied in claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Ranganathan (US 2023/0306417).
Regarding claim 7, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Marinov also teaches obtaining a fourth message from the second application platform steps 716, 718, 722 of Fig. 7a and steps 758 and 766 of Fig. 7b, [0161, 0163, 0165-0167], the second server provides embedded app data to the first server; the embedded app data is then rendered in the interface presented by the first server; similarly, the first server can request updating of embedded app data, and the second server generates the updates, which the first server presents in the interface).
However, Marinov does not expressly disclose wherein the fourth message is generated based on a payment request initiated by a user in the client; and sending a fifth message to the client to instruct the client to invoke a payment module for completing the payment request.
In the same field of endeavor, Ranganathan teaches
wherein the fourth message is generated based on a payment request initiated by a user in the client; and
sending a fifth message to the client to instruct the client to invoke a payment module for
completing the payment request (Fig. 3, Abstract, [0047-0051, 0013-0014, 0025, 0057], it is known for a user to log into a first account/application, and then select an option in an interface to make a payment request, which is supported by a separate server 150 and application; for example, the desired payment transaction may be to use a different account 240 to pay someone; the interface then is instructed to present a user interface element, where a user can provide registration details relating to the payment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the fourth message is generated based on a payment request initiated by a user in the client; and sending a fifth message to the client to instruct the client to invoke a payment module for completing the payment request as suggested in Ranganathan into Marinov because Marinov and Ranganthan pertain to analogous fields of technology. Marinov pertains to a system including a client device and first and second servers, where a user can access an application presented by the first server via an interface; embedded with the interface is a second application presented by a second server. Ranganathan also pertains to a system where a user accesses a first application, and wishes to access a second application indicated in the first application interface. In Ranganathan, for example, the user might indicate a desire to access a payment option associated with a secondary account, and in response, the system provides a module allowing the user to provide registration information for the payment option. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Marinov, so that the invention of Marinov could contemplate a variety of embedded applications, including ones relating to payment e.g., see Ranganathan Fig. 3, Abstract, [0047-0051, 0013-0014, 0025, 0057].
Regarding claim 17, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11. Claim 17 also corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinov, as applied in claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Todd (YouTube video by username Andy Todd, “How to Delete Files and Folders in OneDrive, published Feb. 19, 2024, downloaded from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL5JKkjZV3k).
Regarding claim 8, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, Marinov does not expressly disclose in response to the target application being removed from the second application platform, removing the client of the target application from the first application platform; or in response to an additional application being available in the second application platform, adding, in the first application platform, an additional client corresponding to the additional application.
In the same field of endeavor, Todd teaches
in response to the target application being removed from the second application platform, removing the client of the target application from the first application platform (0:50-1:10, when an application is deleted from a cloud server/storage e.g., OneDrive, a client/shortcut in a graphical user interface that was used to access the application may also be removed from the interface as a result; in the context of Marinov, this means that when an embedded app stored in a second server is removed, the representation associated with the embedded app that was previously presented in the interface for the client device should also be removed) or
in response to an additional application being available in the second application platform, adding, in the first application platform, an additional client corresponding to the additional application.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated in response to the target application being removed from the second application platform, removing the client of the target application from the first application platform; or in response to an additional application being available in the second application platform, adding, in the first application platform, an additional client corresponding to the additional application as suggested in Todd into Marinov, because Marinov and Todd pertain to analogous fields of technology. Marinov pertains to a system where a user can access embedded applications using a client/representation in an interface, where the embedded applications are stored in a second server. Todd also pertains to a system where a user can access multiple files/applications stored in a cloud server be selecting a client/representation in an interface. In Todd, when a file/application is deleted from the cloud server, the client/representation of the file/application also disappears from the interface. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Marinov, so that the interface accurately reflects which embedded applications are available e.g., see Todd 0:50-1:10.
Regarding claim 18, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11. Claim 18 also corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinov, as applied in claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Zimring (US 2021/0113927).
Regarding claim 9, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Marinov also teaches the running data comprises image data corresponding to the running interface of the target application and/or audio data of the target application ( [00170-0178], the embedded application server can visually update an embedded app data object in the integrated interface presented by the user-accessed application server; see also Figs. 7a-7b; [0072], the second application may provide image files).
However, Marinov does not expressly disclose wherein the target application comprises a game application.
In the same field of endeavor, Zimring teaches wherein the target application comprises a game application ([0225-0226], it is known for there to be an application presented to a user, with multiple options for different games; a user can then select one of the games, and data for the game can be streamed in from the cloud).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the target application comprises a game application as suggested in Marinov into Marinov because Marinov and Zimring pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Marinov and Zimring pertain to a user interface and application that present multiple options to a user and update the interface based on selected options, using data drawn from remote servers. In Zimring, the application and interface pertain to gaming. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Marinov, so that the invention of Marinov can be applied in a variety of known fields e.g., see Zimring [0225-0226].
Regarding claim 19, Marinov teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11. Claim 18 also corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Strong (US 2006/0101064) teaches a server platform which maintains copies of data among multiple clients, where deletions and edits are synchronized e.g., see Strong Abstract, [0047, 0050].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7581. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ERIC J YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights