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 .
General Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to Applicant’s application filed 02/06/2025.
Application filed: 02/06/2025
Applicant’s PgPUB: 2025/0181417
Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Continuity/Priority Data:
This Application is Continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 17/590,265 (Patent: 12,244,666) filed 02/01/2022.
Non-Provisional Application No. 17/590,265 is Continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 16/992,278 (Patent: 11,277,472) filed 08/13/2020.
Non-Provisional Application No. 16/992,278 is Continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 15/104,126 (Abandoned) filed 06/13/2016.
Non-Provisional Application No. 15/104,126 is the 371 National Stage Entry of International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2014/003758 filed 07/16/2014.
This Application claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP2013273237 filed 12/27/2013.
Priority documents filed in Application 15/104,126
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 5, it claims in part, “… includes a countdown . timer, …”. It appears that there is a second period (.) in the claim. The position of the period makes the claim grammatically incorrect, as well as violating the rule that a claim can only be one (1) sentence. Examiner will interpret the second period as an unintended grammatical mistake and will read the claim as if the second period was not present.
As to claim 12, similar objection as to claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0331532 A1 to Walters et al. (“Walters”) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0060197 to Kitahara et al. (“Kitahara”).
As to claim 1, Walters discloses:
a system comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 2, processor of Walters); and
one or more memories; in which executable instructions are stored and, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 2, processors and memory of Walters), cause the system to:
receive information indicating that execution of an application from a plurality of applications can be started (¶0061 – Walters teaches a user selecting a messaging application and the application presenting a UI which indicates the application can be started; ¶0004 – Walters teaches The code can further represent instructions configured to cause the processor to send, to a display of the mobile device, an indicator of the set of cloud-based applications associated with the user, and receive user input including a request to initialize a first cloud-based application from the set of cloud-based applications.);
monitor user input related to the execution of the application (¶0057 – Walters teaches the mobile device 410 can delete the above-described information if it determines that five minutes have passed since a most-recent received user input/command. This denotes that user input is being monitored);
determine that no user input is received for a predetermined period during the execution of the application (¶0029 – Walter teaches he thin client module 221 can delete the above-described information in response to a detected period of inactivity by a user of the mobile device 200 and/or with respect to the thin client module); and
cause the execution of the application to be terminated (¶0029 – Walter teaches he thin client module 221 can delete the above-described information in response to a detected period of inactivity by a user of the mobile device 200 and/or with respect to the thin client module).
Kitahara discloses what Walters does not expressly disclose.
Kitahara discloses:
cause, based on the information and when the system is not processing a predetermined kind of application, the execution of the application to start automatically without displaying an inquiry screen or waiting for a start request from a user (¶0161 – Kitahara teaches use of trigger type (i.e., kind of application) where if trigger type is ON, then the application starts automatically, whereas if the trigger type is OFF, the the application requires user prompt to start);
Walters and Kitahara are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to network application implementation.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate determining when an application loads as discussed in Kitahara with a system of tracking user activity within an application as discussed in Walters by adding the functionality of Kitahara to the system/method of Walters in order to determine the timing of execution (Kitahara, ¶0071).
As to claim 2, Walters and Kitahara discloses:
system of claim 1, and
Kitahara discloses:
wherein the predetermined kind of application is a game application (¶0161 – Kitahara teaches trigger type is ON (i.e., game). Examiner Note: the term “game” is a label because it does not have a proper definition of its metes and bounds.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 3, Walters and Kitahara discloses:
system of claim 2, and
Kitahara discloses:
wherein the system automatically starts the execution of the application when the system is not processing the game application (¶0161 – Kitahara teaches trigger type is OFF (i.e., non-game). Examiner Note: the term “game” is a label because it does not have a proper definition of its metes and bounds.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 8, similar rejection as to claim 1.
As to claim 9, similar rejection as to claim 2.
As to claim 10, similar rejection as to claim 3.
As to claim 15, similar rejection as to claim 1.
As to claim 16, Walters and Kitahara discloses:
the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, and
Kitahara discloses:
wherein the predetermined kind of application comprises a game application (¶0161 – Kitahara teaches use of trigger type (i.e., kind of application) where if trigger type is ON, then the application starts automatically, whereas if the trigger type is OFF, the the application requires user prompt to start. Examiner Note: the term “game” is a label because it does not have a proper definition of its metes and bounds), and
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to automatically start the execution of the application when the one or more processors are not processing any game application (¶0161 – Kitahara teaches use of trigger type (i.e., kind of application) where if trigger type is ON, then the application starts automatically, whereas if the trigger type is OFF, the the application requires user prompt to start. Examiner Note: the term “game” is a label because it does not have a proper definition of its metes and bounds). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
As to claim 17, Walters and Kitahara discloses:
the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, and
Kitahara discloses:
wherein when the one or more processors are processing an application other than the predetermined kind of application, the instructions cause the one or more processors to start the execution of the application automatically without suspending the application being processed (¶0161 – Kitahara teaches use of trigger type (i.e., kind of application) where if trigger type is ON, then the application starts automatically, whereas if the trigger type is OFF, the the application requires user prompt to start. Examiner Note: the term “game” is a label because it does not have a proper definition of its metes and bounds). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 1.
Claims 4-6, 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0331532 A1 to Walters et al. (“Walters”) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0060197 to Kitahara et al. (“Kitahara”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 10,051,019 B1 to Jasso et al. (“Jasso”).
As to claim 4, Walters and Kitahara discloses:
system of claim 1,
Jasso discloses what Walters and Kitahara do not expressly disclose
Jasso discloses:
wherein prior to causing the execution of the application to be terminated, the execution of the instructions further causes the system to:
transmit, during the execution of the application, a notification indicating an impending termination due to inactivity (Fig. 5a, col. 8 ll. 26-50 – Jasso teaches showing an inactivity timer (i.e., notification)).
Walters, Kitahara and Jasso are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to network application implementation.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate terminating inactivity timer as discussed in Jasso with determining when an application loads as discussed in Kitahara with a system of tracking user activity within an application as discussed in Walters by adding the functionality of Jasso to the system/method of Walters and Kitahara in order to prevent unauthorized users from accessing systems (Jasso, col. 1 ll. 14-25).
As to claim 5, Walters, Kitahara and Jasso discloses:
system of claim 4, and
Jasso discloses:
wherein the notification includes a countdown [.] timer, indicating a remaining time before termination (Fig. 5a, col. 8 ll. 26-50 – Jasso teaches showing an inactivity timer (i.e., notification)). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 4.
As to claim 6, Walters, Kitahara and Jasso discloses:
system of claim 4, and
Jasso discloses:
wherein the system transmits the notification when a period during which no user input is received reaches a threshold shorter than the predetermined period (Fig. 5a, col. 8 ll. 26-50 – Jasso teaches showing an inactivity timer (i.e., notification). Jasso teaches the notification is displayed after 14 minutes (i.e. threshold) of inactivity with a countdown to expire after 60 secs (i.e., 15 minutes of inactivity (i.e., predetermined period)). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 4.
As to claim 11, similar rejection as to claim 4.
As to claim 12, similar rejection as to claim 5.
As to claim 13, similar rejection as to claim 6.
As to claim 18, similar rejection as to claim 4.
As to claim 19, similar rejection as to claim 5.
As to claim 20, similar rejection as to claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0331532 A1 to Walters et al. (“Walters”) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0060197 to Kitahara et al. (“Kitahara”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060080619 B1 to Carlson et al. (“Carlson”).
As to claim 7, Walters and Kitahara discloses:
system of claim 1,
Carlson discloses what Walters and Kitahara do not expressly disclose
Carlson discloses:
wherein the predetermined period during which no user input is received is dynamically adjusted based on user activity patterns or system settings (¶0004 – Carlson teaches dynamically adjusting an inactivity value based on the amount of input entered into a document (i.e., user activity pattern).).
Walters, Kitahara and Carlson are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to network application implementation.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a dynamic timer as discussed in Carlson with determining when an application loads as discussed in Kitahara with a system of tracking user activity within an application as discussed in Walters by adding the functionality of Carlson to the system/method of Walters and Kitahara in order to inform a user of inactivity based on their work (Carlson, ¶0004).
As to claim 14, similar rejection as to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR A ELFERVIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (10:00 AM CST) - Friday (4:00 PM CST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAYLOR A ELFERVIG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights