CTNF 19/100,291 CTNF 83764 DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to application filed on January 31 st , 2025. Claims 28~47 are examined. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/25 and 03/26/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 28~37 and 43~47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Cho et al. hereinafter Cho (U.S 2014/0351446) . Regarding Claim 28 , Cho taught a device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device at least to: cause a first application on the device to send, to an application registry on the device, a discovery request for discovering other applications [¶661, capability discovery layer may allow an application layer entity to register an identity and/or service capabilities thereof with the capability discovery layer; ¶664, capability discovery layer of an electronic device may receive queries from peer electronic devices. The capability discovery layer may respond to a query from a peer electronic device with information relating to locally registered application layer entities]; cause the application registry to determine, based on the discovery request, a second application registered in the application registry [¶666, if the capability discovery layer receives a query with a filter, then the capability discovery layer may respond to such a query with a list of application layer entities or service capabilities thereof that satisfy the filter]; and cause the application registry to send, to the first application, a discovery response indicating the second application [¶666, the capability discovery layer may identify and/or filter the currently registered application layer entities and/or service capabilities thereof that may provide a messaging service, and communicate such application layer entities and/or service capabilities thereof to the peer electronic device]. Regarding Claim 29 , Cho taught wherein the device is further caused to: cause the second application to be registered in the application registry [¶661, capability discovery layer may allow an application layer entity to register an identity and/or service capabilities thereof with the capability discovery layer]. Regarding Claim 30 , Cho taught wherein the device is caused to cause the second application to be registered in the application registry by: causing the second application to send, to the application registry, a registry message comprising a profile of the second application; and causing the application registry to store the profile of the second application [¶594, accessory service profile]. Regarding Claim 31 , Cho taught wherein the profile of the second application comprises at least one of: an identifier of the second application; a name of the second application; application type information of the second application; a service supported by the second application; an address of a service; or service type information of a service [¶775]. Regarding Claim 32 , Cho taught wherein the device is caused to cause the second application to be registered in the application registry by: determining that the second application becomes operative for the first time; and based on determining that the second application becomes operative for the first time, causing the second application to be registered in the application registry [¶676, new application install]. Regarding Claim 33 , Cho taught wherein the device is further caused to: cause a first connection manager on the device to receive a trigger, from a user of the device, for establishing a connection between the device and a further device; cause the first connection manager to establish, based on receiving the trigger, the connection in cooperation with a second connection manager on the further device; and cause the first connection manager to store information on the connection including an address of the further device [¶493, the device is further caused to: cause the application registry to send the discovery request to a further application registry on the further device via the connection; cause the application registry to receive, from the further application registry via the connection, a further discovery response indicating a third application registered in the further application registry; and cause the application registry to generate the discovery response indicating the second application and the third application (between devices 1901 and 1903)]. Regarding Claim 34 , Cho taught wherein the device is caused to cause the first connection manager to establish the connection in cooperation with the second connection manager by: causing the first connection manager to send a request to the second connection manager, the request being for establishing the connection and comprising authentication information; and causing the first connection manager to receive, from the second connection manager, a response comprising an acknowledgement for the request [¶546, the service agent may determine whether to accept a service connection request according to an authentication of the service agent requesting service connection; ¶408]. Regarding Claim 35 , Cho taught wherein the device is further caused to: cause the application registry to send the discovery request to a further application registry on the further device via the connection; cause the application registry to receive, from the further application registry via the connection, a further discovery response indicating a third application registered in the further application registry; and cause the application registry to generate the discovery response indicating the second application and the third application [¶664~¶666]. Regarding Claim 36 , Cho taught wherein the discovery response indicates a service supported by the second application and an address for accessing the service [¶650; ¶651; ¶837, device connectivity-specific address]. Regarding Claim 37 , Cho taught wherein the address for accessing the service comprises an address of the service, and wherein the device is further caused to: cause the first application to communicate with the second application based on the address of the service [¶650; ¶651; ¶493, service agent 1921 may use the address (e.g., the peer device identifier, the application layer entity identifier, the ASP ID, and the service agent identifier) of the service agent 1909 in order to initiate and setup a connection between the service agent 1921 and the service agent 1909]. Regarding Claim 43 , Cho taught wherein the device is caused to cause the application registry to determine the second application by: causing the application registry to determine a discovery criterion from the discovery request; and causing the application registry to determine that the second application satisfies the discovery criterion [¶666, if the capability discovery layer receives a query with a filter, then the capability discovery layer may respond to such a query with a list of application layer entities or service capabilities thereof that satisfy the filter]. Regarding Claim 44 , Cho taught further comprising at least one antenna [¶385, connection hardware may be physical wireless implying antenna in order for devices 601 to communication with device 615]. Regarding Claims 45~47 , the claims are similar in scope to claim 28 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Liu et al. hereinafter Liu (US 2020/0106840) . Regarding Claim 38 , Cho-Liu taught wherein the address for accessing the service comprises an address of an application exposure on the device, and wherein the device is further caused to: cause the first application to communicate with the second application via the application exposure based on the address of the application exposure [¶82, an end point is a discovery address notified to a service consumer by a service instance, and the service instance uses the address to expose information]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Liu’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Cho, because the combination would allow service quality to improve and system processing efficiency can be enhanced (Liu: C6:4~8) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 39~41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Singh et al. hereinafter Singh (U.S 2017/0289241) . Regarding Claim 39 , Cho-Singh taught wherein the device is further caused to: cause an application collaborator on the device to provide a user of the device with an application programming interface, API, for managing a plurality of devices including the device and a plurality of applications on the plurality of devices, wherein the API comprises at least one of the following: an API for setting the plurality of applications to a certain state; an API for turning on or off the plurality of devices; or an API for determining states of the plurality of devices [¶54, application control message can contain one or more API hooks, the one or more API hooks allowing for remote control of the application]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Singh’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Cho, because the combination would provide for detection and/or control of applications on remote devices (Singh: ¶15). Regarding Claim 40 , Cho taught wherein the device is further caused to: cause the application collaborator to send, to the application registry, a trigger for discovering the plurality of applications and services supported by the plurality of applications; and cause the application collaborator to maintain information on the plurality of applications and the services supported by the plurality of applications [¶412, a user input triggers establishment of device discovery; ¶663 maintain list of registered application layer entities]. Regarding Claim 41 , Cho-Singh taught wherein the device is further caused to: cause the application collaborator to determine that the API is called by the user; cause the application collaborator to determine the plurality of applications associated with the called API; and cause the application collaborator to perform an operation on the plurality of applications [¶54, application control message can contain one or more API hooks, the one or more API hooks allowing for remote control of the application]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 39, applies here as well . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Liu et al. hereinafter Liu (CN 104317647A) . Regarding Claim 42 , Cho- Liu taught wherein the device is further caused to: cause the application collaborator to provide the user with an interface for configuring an application collaboration policy indicating an action criterion and at least one action to be performed if the action criterion is satisfied [Fig. 2 and associated description describing communication between any terminal and the wearable device. The wearable device sends information when triggered by any user action]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Liu’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Cho, because the combination would improve the information received by the wearable device [Liu: abstract]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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. /H.K/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443 /HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 2 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 3 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 4 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 5 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 6 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 7 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 8 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 9 Art Unit: 2443 Application/Control Number: 19/100,291 Page 10 Art Unit: 2443
Prosecution Insights