Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
The office action is being sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 4/10/2025 for the application number 19029706. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Priority
This application is a continuation of Continuation of application No. 18/384,769, filed on Oct. 27, 2023, now Pat. No. 12,243,554, which is a continuation of application No. 17/841 ,458, filed of Jun. 15, 2022, now Pat. No. 11,848,028, which is a continuation of application No. 16/990,763, filed on Aug. 11, 2020, now Pat. No. 11,386,915, which is a continuation of application No. 16/177,570, filed on Nov. 1, 2018, now Pat. No. 10,777,216, which is a continuation of application No. 14/3ll ,995, filed on Jun. 23, 2014, now Pat. No. 10,152,987.
Status of the claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-20 are new. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US patent application US 12243554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US patent application US 11848028. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US patent application US 11386915. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US patent application US 10777216. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US patent application US 10152987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
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.
And
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determination.
Claims 1-6, 10-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaumont (US 20150154134) and further in view of Rjeili ( US 20140344446 )
Regarding claim 1, Beaumont teaches a method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a command input for a first user device, (receive user input, 300, Fig 3) determining that a second user device ( determine the proximate devices, Fig 2-3) is associated with the proximate network; upon determining that the second user device is associated, determining that the command input resolves to a first user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using a first application accessible to the second user device (determine a capable device, The UI 600 includes an indication 602 that information is currently being sent to another device for output thereon., Para 0059, Fig 6) ; based at least in part on determining that the command input resolves to the first user device action, generating a command communication that causes the second user device to invoke the first user device action using the first application and process the command input as input for the first user device action ( command generation, Para 0059-0060, Fig 6-8) ; and causing the command communication to be provided to the second user device ( , a first selector element 806 for a tablet is shown that may be selectable to cause the device to command a tablet on the device's network to present the output automatically without further user input responsive thereto, as well as a second selector element 806 for a laptop that may be selectable to cause the device to command the laptop on the device's network to present the output automatically without further user input responsive thereto., Para 0064, Fig 6-8)
Beaumont does not explicitly teach wherein the first user device is associated with a user account of a user determining that a second user device is associated with the same user account as the first user account; upon determining that the second user device is associated with the same user account as the first user account, execute an action
However, Rjeili teach wherein the first user device is associated with a user account of a user ( authenticated user, Para 0128) determining that a second user device is associated with the same user account as the first user account ( the devices may automatically determine the user account and authentication credentials are the same on each device, Para 0128) ; upon determining that the second user device is associated with the same user account as the first user account, execute an action ( allow sharing capabilities, Para 0128)
It would have obvious to POSITA having the teachings of Beaumont to further include the concept of Rjeili before effective filing date so to manage, accelerate, and improve the delivery of enterprise resources to the mobile device (Para 0060, Rjeili)
Regarding claim 2, Beaumont as above in claim 1, teaches, wherein the second user device is a smart phone (smart phone, Para 0016)
Regarding claim 3, Beaumont as above in claim 1, teaches, in response to determining that the command input resolves to the first user device action ( devices able to perform the command, Para 0047-0048) , generating data that causes the first user device to prompt the user of the first user device to either accept or deny invoking the first user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using the first application, in response to the command input (A prompt 704 is also shown for whether to authorize presentation of the output (e.g. in instances where the receiving device may authorize presentation prior to actually presenting received output). Accordingly, a yes selector element 706 and a no selector element 708 for respectively responding in the affirmative or negative to the prompt 704 are included on the UI 700 to respectively authorize or deny presentation of the output on the device of FIG. 7, Para 0062)
Regarding claim 4, Beaumont as above in claim 3, teaches, wherein generating the data that causes the first user device to prompt the user of the first user device comprises displaying at least one dialog in a user interface of the first user device by which the user of the first user device may either accept or deny invoking the first user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using the first application (fig 6-8--
PNG
media_image1.png
546
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Beaumont as above in claim 4, teaches, wherein the user of the first user device accepting invoking the first user device action comprises selecting a button in the at least one dialog in the user interface ( fig 6-8)
Regarding claim 6, Beaumont as above in claim 3, teaches, further comprising, in response to the user of the first user device accepting invoking the first user device action, displaying, in the user interface of the first user device, options specific to the first user device action ( fig 7)
Regarding claim 10, rejections analogous to claim 1 are applicable.
Regarding claim 11, rejections analogous to claim 2 are applicable.
Regarding claim 12, rejections analogous to claim 3 are applicable.
Regarding claim 13, rejections analogous to claim 4 are applicable.
Regarding claim 14, rejections analogous to claim 5 are applicable.
Regarding claim 15, rejections analogous to claim 6 are applicable.
Regarding claim 18, rejections analogous to claim 9 are applicable.
Regarding claim 19, rejections analogous to claim 1 are applicable.
Regarding claim 20, rejections analogous to claim 2 are applicable.
Claims 7-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaumont (US 20150154134) and further in view of Rjeili (US 20140344446 ) and further in view of Marshall (US 20120098636)
Regarding claim 7, Beaumont modified by Rjeili as above in claim 1, teaches, user can perform multiple actions using the devices ( fig 6-8) however does not explicitly teach determining that the command input also resolves to a second user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using a second application accessible to the second user device ( ; and in response to determining that the command input also resolves to the second user device action, generating data that causes the first user device to prompt the user of the first user device to either accept or deny invoking the second user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using the second application, in response to the command input
However, Marshall teaches determining that the command input also resolves to a second user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using a second application accessible to the second user device ( if the ambiguous input includes the letters "C" and "O," the mobile unit 110 identifies color temperature capability and the contrast as the two responsive capabilities. In this scenario, the mobile unit 110 identifies the most candidate capabilities to the ambiguous input by referencing a number of sources…..FIG. 2B illustrates an exemplary user interface 200B that includes such a list. , Para 0079-0080, color and contrast are both from one device ( fig 2a) ) ; and in response to determining that the command input also resolves to the second user device action, generating data that causes the first user device to prompt the user of the first user device to either accept or deny invoking the second user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using the second application, in response to the command input ( user can select what user needs to perform, Fig 2a-b, Para 0079-0080)
It would have been to POSITA having the teachings of Beaumont and Rjeili to further include the teachings of Marshall before effective filing date so to disambiguate an ambiguous commands ( Para 0054, Marshall)
Regarding claim 8, Beaumont modified by Rjeili modified by Marshall as above in claim 1, teaches in response to the user of the first user device accepting invoking the second user device action: generating an additional command communication that includes data that causes the second user device to invoke the second user device action using the second application and process the command input as input for the second user device action; and sending the additional command communication to the second user device ( approve the transmission of the command to the device fig 6-8)
Regarding claim 9, Beaumont modified by Rjeili and Marshall as above in claim 7, teaches generating the data that causes the first user device to prompt the user of the first user device comprises displaying at least one dialog in a user interface of the first user device by which the user of the first user device may either accept or deny invoking at least one of the first user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using the first application and the second user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using the second application (( if the ambiguous input includes the letters "C" and "O," the mobile unit 110 identifies color temperature capability and the contrast as the two responsive capabilities. In this scenario, the mobile unit 110 identifies the most candidate capabilities to the ambiguous input by referencing a number of sources…..FIG. 2B illustrates an exemplary user interface 200B that includes such a list. , Para 0079-0080, color and contrast are both from one device ( fig 2a) ), fig 2b, Marshall) ; and the at least one dialog comprises: a first dialog in the user interface of the first user device by which the user of the first user device may either accept or deny invoking the first user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using the first application; and a second dialog in the user interface of the first user device by which the user of the first user device may either accept or deny invoking the second user device action that the second user device is configured to perform using the second application ( fig 6-7, Beaumont)
Regarding claim 16, rejections analogous to claim 7 are applicable.
Regarding claim 17, rejections analogous to claim 8 are applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oczkowski (US 10148495) teaches presenting data received from a headless device in an application served from distributed computing device(s), and using the application to generate data for configuring and registering the headless device. The headless device may have limited or absent display capabilities and the data may be employed to configure the headless device for wireless communication with other devices. The application may execute on a user device that communicates with the headless device over a wireless access point incorporated into the headless device. The data received from the headless device may be integrated into the application provided by the distributed computing devices(s), to enable updates to the appearance or user experience of the application without updating software on the headless device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richa Sonifrank whose telephone number is (571)272-5357. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 7AM - 5:30PM.
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, Phan Hai can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
