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 .
Claim Interpretation
Observation: Claim 1 recites a system with computing mobile device, the computing mobile device is introduced through Fig. 2A with processor and memory. This would not invoke 101 software per se as the computing devices has a known and hardware structure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding Claim 1: it recites “a mobile computing device also communicatively coupled to the data packet network and running a client-side component configured to: monitor user actions performed on the device including at least application usage data indicative of user engagement with particular applications installed on the device, generate and continuously update, based at least in part on the monitored user actions, contextual device data associated with the device, send to the one or more server-side software components a request for customized content, the request including the contextual device data, receive, from the one or more server-side components responsive to the request, customized content as determined by the content provider based at least in part on the contextual device data, and perform a silent installation of the received customized content on the device, being defined as an installation that is initiated without requiring user action”.
A claim limitation invokes 112(f) if it meets the three-prong analysis: (1) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term as a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder; (2) the term
“means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function. MPEP 2181(I). Under the first prong, “means are used as a generic placeholder. There are functions of “monitoring, generating, sending, receiving, performing a silent installation” coupled to the means. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the originally filed specification and figures 2A, paragraphs 0045-0046 recite the mobile device configured to monitoring, generating, sending, receiving, performing a silent installation. Although the specification recites a processor to cause the steps of the invention, the claim does not recite sufficient structure in the claim. Therefore, the claim limitation invokes 112(f).
Claims 1 recites “mobile computing device configured to monitor user actions perfomed..; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device comprising means to obtaining plurality of constituent data.
mobile computing device configured to generate and continuously update..; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
mobile computing device configured to send to the one or more server side software component..; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
mobile computing device configured to receive from the one or more server components..; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
mobile computing device configured to perform silent installation of the received customized content..; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
Therefore the claim invokes 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites the first term “functionality of a mobile device to a mobile computing device”, and then later the instant claim recites the second term “a mobile computing device also communicatively..”, then later the claim recites the later terms “monitor user actions performed on the device.. installed on the device”, “generate and continuously update… data associated with the device”, “perform a silent installation of the received customized content on the device..”. It is unclear whether the later terms refer to the first term or second term. This would render the claim indefinite.
Furthermore, the claim recites “generate and continuously update”, the term “continuously“ is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “continuously” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, the instant claim recites term 1 “components a request for customized content”, and then term 2 ”receive from one or more server-side…, customized content”, and then term 3 “perform a silent installation of the received customized content”. It is unclear whether term 3 refers to term 1 or term 2 in the instant claim. This would render the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-7: dependent claims 2-7 are rejected as they depend on the independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites the first term “functionality of a mobile device to a mobile computing device”, and then later the instant claim recites the second term “a mobile computing device also communicatively..”, then later the claim recites the later terms “monitor user actions performed on the device.. installed on the device”, “generate and continuously update… data associated with the device”, “perform a silent installation of the received customized content on the device..”. It is unclear whether the later terms refer to the first term or second term. This would render the claim indefinite.
Furthermore, the claim recites “generate and continuously update”, the term “continuously“ is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “continuously” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, the instant claim recites term 1 “components a request for customized content”, and then term 2 ”receive from one or more server-side…, customized content”, and then term 3 “perform a silent installation of the received customized content”. It is unclear whether term 3 refers to term 1 or term 2 in the instant claim. This would render the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 9-14: dependent claims 9-14 are rejected as they depend on the independent claim 8.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recites the first term “running on the mobile computing device”, and then later the instant claim recites the second term “performed on the device and including”, then later the claim recites the later terms “installed on the device”. It is unclear whether these terms are referring to the same thing or something different. This would render the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 16-20: dependent claims 16-20 are rejected as they depend on the independent claim 15.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a system comprising computing device for : monitor user actions performed on the device including at least application usage data indicative of user engagement with particular applications installed on the device, generate and continuously update, based at least in part on the monitored user actions, contextual device data associated with the device, send to the one or more server-side software components a request for customized content, the request including the contextual device data, receive, from the one or more server-side components responsive to the request, customized content as determined by the content provider based at least in part on the contextual device data, and perform a silent installation of the received customized content on the device, being defined as an installation that is initiated without requiring user action.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 2-7: dependent claims 2-7 are rejected as they depend on the independent claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1: the instant claim recites “comprising computing device for : monitor user actions performed on the device including at least application usage data indicative of user engagement with particular applications installed on the device, generate and continuously update, based at least in part on the monitored user actions, contextual device data associated with the device, send to the one or more server-side software components a request for customized content, the request including the contextual device data, receive, from the one or more server-side components responsive to the request, customized content as determined by the content provider based at least in part on the contextual device data, and perform a silent installation of the received customized content on the device, being defined as an installation that is initiated without requiring user action”. Since the claim invokes 112(f), the specification must be consulted to determine the description of these functions. However, the specification does not state how these functions are being performed and does not state the algorithms to perform these functions. MPEP 2181 (V).
Regarding claims 2-7: dependent claims 2-7 are rejected as they depend on the independent claim 1.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Application 19218679 and US Patent 11716400
Claim 1 is non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting (obviousness). Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “a content server, associated with a content provider, communicatively coupled to a data packet network and running one or more server-side components to selectively send customized content intended to improve the functionality of a mobile device to a mobile computing device, wherein particular customized content is selected for a particular mobile computing device based at least in part on contextual device data received for the particular mobile computing device”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “a content server, associated with a content provider, communicatively coupled to a data packet network and running one or more server-side components to selectively send customized content intended to improve the functionality of a mobile device to a mobile computing device based on one or more operational scenarios detected on the mobile computing devices, wherein specific content is sent to the mobile computing device in response to detection of one or more specific operational scenarios, and includes machine executable code to alter one or more operational capabilities of one the mobile computing device” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “a mobile computing device also communicatively coupled to the data packet network and running a client-side component configured to”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “a mobile computing device also communicatively coupled to the data packet network and running a client-side component, and configured to” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “monitor user actions performed on the device including at least application usage data indicative of user engagement with particular applications installed on the device”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “activate or configure one or more monitoring routines to monitor the user actions performed on the device, defined within the received device operational scenario definition, monitor said mobile computing device for an occurrence of the user actions performed on the device, associated with the defined operational scenario using the activated or configured monitoring routines” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “generate and continuously update, based at least in part on the monitored user actions, contextual device data associated with the device”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400. it
would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Pandit", US 20120222025 A1) in order to generate and update the OS device based on user actions contextual data ([0015-0016, 0030] Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, the release information, comparison module 334 may compare the information from each OS version (i.e., release) to generate difference information 129. The difference information can be calculated between all consecutive releases and then assembled into a data file.) because it would be useful for the different vendors applications to know which libraries and interfaces are available so that they can determine whether an ISV application will function properly if the OS on a host machine is upgraded or downgraded to a different version (Pandit [0002-0004]).
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “send to the one or more server-side software components a request for customized content, the request including the contextual device data”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “notify said one or more server-side components of detected occurrences of the user actions performed on the device, when the detected occurrences have met the mobile device operational scenario definition” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “receive, from the one or more server-side components responsive to the request, customized content as determined by the content provider based at least in part on the contextual device data”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “receive customized content, as determined by the content provider, from the server-side component responsive to the notification” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “perform a silent installation of the received customized content on the device, being defined as an installation that is initiated without requiring user action”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “install the received customized content” have similar subject matters.
Claim 2 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 2 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the client-side component is further configured to monitor a device operating system (OS) version, wherein the contextual device data includes the OS version, and wherein the particular customized content as determined by the content provider is based at least in part on the OS version”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Pandit", US 20120222025 A1) in order to monitor OS version of the device ([0015-0016, 0030] Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, the release information, comparison module 334 may compare the information from each OS version (i.e., release) to generate difference information 129. The difference information can be calculated between all consecutive releases and then assembled into a data file.) because it would be useful for the different vendors applications to know which libraries and interfaces are available so that they can determine whether an ISV application will function properly if the OS on a host machine is upgraded or downgraded to a different version (Pandit [0002-0004])
Claim 3 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 3 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the client-side component is further configured to monitor a device geographic location, wherein the contextual device data includes the geographic location, and wherein the particular customized content as determined by the content provider is based at least in part on the geographic location”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("CHITNIS", US 20150310493 A1) in order to determine the geolocation of the mobile device when delivering the content ([0049-0050] household targeting information, advertisement campaign information, geographical location information (e.g., based on zip code), demographic information (e.g., age, income, gender, etc.), psychographic information (e.g., information associated with user personality, values, attitudes, interests, lifestyle, etc.), and geographic location information such as the location of mobile device 202 (e.g., via a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) in mobile device 202, triangulation techniques, etc.). Provider system 204 may use any combination of such information to select a targeted advertisement to deliver to mobile device 202.) because it would help the advertisement system to deliver the appropriate content based on the location of the mobile device (CHITNIS [0049-0050]).
Claim 4 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 4 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the contextual device data comprises a frequency of use metric for each installed application, and the customized content is selected based at least in part on applications with the highest or lowest frequency of use”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Wang", US 20170180500 A1) in order to rank each application with certain criteria and assign points to the applications used by a user on a mobile terminal ([0074] Fig. 1, Fig. 2 table 2, ranking applications being used on mobile terminal, selecting and pushing content based on the ranked application, user behavior) because it would improve the performance of electronic devices having certain application pushed toward them (Wong [0002-0004])
Claim 5 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 5 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the contextual device data includes information regarding the presence or absence of one or more specific applications or application types on the device, and the customized content is selected based at least in part on applications or application types present on or absent from the device”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Pereira", US 20130346268 A1) in order to determine the available applications being used on mobile devices ([0055-0056] the application marketplace server 104 may identify mobile applications available to the particular user that are both specific to the particular user as an individual (e.g., "user-specific"), and specific to a group in which the particular user is associated with (e.g., "group-specific")) because it would help grouping applications and allow users of mobile devices to search for particular content and titles and provide mechanisms to narrow down the applications that a user may want to download (Pereira [0004])
Claim 6 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 6 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the customized content comprises a software application, a configuration file for a software application, a multimedia file or stream, a digital advertisement, or a notification”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Besehanic", US 20130111511A1) in order to include in the content a software application or notification or configuration file ([0023] he schedule notifier 102 of the illustrated example determines that “Law and Order” will be presented in Chicago on Channel 4 at 5:00 P.M. CST and provides this schedule information to the user 104 through, for example, an electronic mail message (“email”), a pop-up window, a calendar alert, a text message and/or any other type of notification medium. (In some examples, a notification is not provided when the user 104 is in the home location 105.) If the user 104 of the illustrated example travels to a second location 107 associated with RF transceiver tower 110 (for example, Los Angeles), the schedule notifier 102 determines that “Law and Order” will be presented on Channel 2 at 3:00 P.M. PST and provides this schedule information to the user 104 through, for example, an email, a pop-up window, a calendar alert, a text message and/or any other type of notification medium.) because it would help push the right content with notification to the user based on changing the location of the mobile device (Besehanic [0002])
Claim 7 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 7 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the silent installation is performed responsive to one or more of: the device arriving at a specific geographic location, the device being connected to a Wi-Fi network, the device having a battery level above a predetermined threshold, and the device having a predetermined amount of available memory, storage and/or processing resources”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Besehanic", US 20130111511A1) in order to push presentation, notification to the mobile device and user based on location and specific time ([0035] The schedule pusher 212 of the illustrated example pushes the broadcast time and an identifier of the channel for the current location to the mobile device 106 via the interface 202) because it would help push the right content with notification to the user based on changing the location of the mobile device (Besehanic [0002])
Claim 8 is non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting (anticipated). Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “A method for distributing customized content to a mobile computing device, the method comprising, by one or more server-side components running on a content server, the content server associated with a content provider and communicatively coupled to a data packet network”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “a content server, associated with a content provider, communicatively coupled to a data packet network and running one or more server-side components to selectively send customized content intended to improve the functionality of a mobile device to a mobile computing device based on one or more operational scenarios detected on the mobile computing devices, wherein specific content is sent to the mobile computing device in response to detection of one or more specific operational scenarios, and includes machine executable code to alter one or more operational capabilities of one the mobile computing device, and a mobile computing device also communicatively coupled to the data packet network and running a client-side component, and configured to” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “receiving contextual device data associated with a particular mobile computing device from a client-side component running on the mobile computing device”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “notify said one or more server-side components of detected occurrences of the user actions performed on the device, when the detected occurrences have met the mobile device operational scenario definition” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “the contextual device data being based at least in part on monitored user actions performed on the device and including application usage data indicative of user engagement with particular applications installed on the device”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “activate or configure one or more monitoring routines to monitor the user actions performed on the device, defined within the received device operational scenario definition, monitor said mobile computing device for an occurrence of the user actions performed on the device, associated with the defined operational scenario using the activated or configured monitoring routines” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “selecting, based at least in part on the received contextual device data, customized content intended to improve the functionality of the mobile computing device”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “receive customized content, as determined by the content provider, from the server-side component responsive to the notification” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “sending the selected customized content to the client-side component on the mobile computing device”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “receive customized content, as determined by the content provider, from the server-side component responsive to the notification” have similar subject matters.
Furthermore, Limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application 19218679 “causing the client-side component to perform a silent installation of the received customized content on the mobile computing device, wherein the silent installation is defined as an installation that is initiated without requiring user action.”, and the limitation in claim 1 in the Patent 11716400 “install the received customized content” have similar subject matters.
Claim 9 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 9 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the client-side component is further configured to monitor a device operating system (OS) version, wherein the contextual device data includes the OS version, and wherein the particular customized content as determined by the content provider is based at least in part on the OS version”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Pandit", US 20120222025 A1) in order to monitor OS version of the device ([0015-0016, 0030] Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, the release information, comparison module 334 may compare the information from each OS version (i.e., release) to generate difference information 129. The difference information can be calculated between all consecutive releases and then assembled into a data file.) because it would be useful for the different vendors applications to know which libraries and interfaces are available so that they can determine whether an ISV application will function properly if the OS on a host machine is upgraded or downgraded to a different version (Pandit [0002-0004])
Claim 10 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 10 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the client-side component is further configured to monitor a device geographic location, wherein the contextual device data includes the geographic location, and wherein the particular customized content as determined by the content provider is based at least in part on the geographic location”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("CHITNIS", US 20150310493 A1) in order to determine the geolocation of the mobile device when delivering the content ([0049-0050] household targeting information, advertisement campaign information, geographical location information (e.g., based on zip code), demographic information (e.g., age, income, gender, etc.), psychographic information (e.g., information associated with user personality, values, attitudes, interests, lifestyle, etc.), and geographic location information such as the location of mobile device 202 (e.g., via a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) in mobile device 202, triangulation techniques, etc.). Provider system 204 may use any combination of such information to select a targeted advertisement to deliver to mobile device 202.) because it would help the advertisement system to deliver the appropriate content based on the location of the mobile device (CHITNIS [0049-0050]).
Claim 11 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 11 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the contextual device data comprises a frequency of use metric for each installed application, and the customized content is selected based at least in part on applications with the highest or lowest frequency of use”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Wang", US 20170180500 A1) in order to rank each application with certain criteria and assign points to the applications used by a user on a mobile terminal ([0074] Fig. 1, Fig. 2 table 2, ranking applications being used on mobile terminal, selecting and pushing content based on the ranked application, user behavior) because it would improve the performance of electronic devices having certain application pushed toward them (Wong [0002-0004])
Claim 12 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 12 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the contextual device data includes information regarding the presence or absence of one or more specific applications or application types on the device, and the customized content is selected based at least in part on applications or application types present on or absent from the device”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Pereira", US 20130346268 A1) in order to determine the available applications being used on mobile devices ([0055-0056] the application marketplace server 104 may identify mobile applications available to the particular user that are both specific to the particular user as an individual (e.g., "user-specific"), and specific to a group in which the particular user is associated with (e.g., "group-specific")) because it would help grouping applications and allow users of mobile devices to search for particular content and titles and provide mechanisms to narrow down the applications that a user may want to download (Pereira [0004])
Claim 13 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 13 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the customized content comprises a software application, a configuration file for a software application, a multimedia file or stream, a digital advertisement, or a notification”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Besehanic", US 20130111511A1) in order to include in the content a software application or notification or configuration file ([0023] he schedule notifier 102 of the illustrated example determines that “Law and Order” will be presented in Chicago on Channel 4 at 5:00 P.M. CST and provides this schedule information to the user 104 through, for example, an electronic mail message (“email”), a pop-up window, a calendar alert, a text message and/or any other type of notification medium. (In some examples, a notification is not provided when the user 104 is in the home location 105.) If the user 104 of the illustrated example travels to a second location 107 associated with RF transceiver tower 110 (for example, Los Angeles), the schedule notifier 102 determines that “Law and Order” will be presented on Channel 2 at 3:00 P.M. PST and provides this schedule information to the user 104 through, for example, an email, a pop-up window, a calendar alert, a text message and/or any other type of notification medium.) because it would help push the right content with notification to the user based on changing the location of the mobile device (Besehanic [0002])
Claim 14 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 14 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the silent installation is performed responsive to one or more of: the device arriving at a specific geographic location, the device being connected to a Wi-Fi network, the device having a battery level above a predetermined threshold, and the device having a predetermined amount of available memory, storage and/or processing resources”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Besehanic", US 20130111511A1) in order to push presentation, notification to the mobile device and user based on location and specific time ([0035] The schedule pusher 212 of the illustrated example pushes the broadcast time and an identifier of the channel for the current location to the mobile device 106 via the interface 202) because it would help push the right content with notification to the user based on changing the location of the mobile device (Besehanic [0002])
Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 8.
Claim 16 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 16 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the contextual device data includes a device operating system (OS) version, and wherein selecting the customized content is based at least in part on the OS version”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Pandit", US 20120222025 A1) in order to monitor OS version of the device ([0015-0016, 0030] Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, the release information, comparison module 334 may compare the information from each OS version (i.e., release) to generate difference information 129. The difference information can be calculated between all consecutive releases and then assembled into a data file.) because it would be useful for the different vendors applications to know which libraries and interfaces are available so that they can determine whether an ISV application will function properly if the OS on a host machine is upgraded or downgraded to a different version (Pandit [0002-0004])
Claim 17 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 17 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the contextual device data includes a geographic location of the mobile computing device, and wherein selecting the customized content is based at least in part on the geographic location.”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("CHITNIS", US 20150310493 A1) in order to determine the geolocation of the mobile device when delivering the content ([0049-0050] household targeting information, advertisement campaign information, geographical location information (e.g., based on zip code), demographic information (e.g., age, income, gender, etc.), psychographic information (e.g., information associated with user personality, values, attitudes, interests, lifestyle, etc.), and geographic location information such as the location of mobile device 202 (e.g., via a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) in mobile device 202, triangulation techniques, etc.). Provider system 204 may use any combination of such information to select a targeted advertisement to deliver to mobile device 202.) because it would help the advertisement system to deliver the appropriate content based on the location of the mobile device (CHITNIS [0049-0050]).
Claim 18 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 18 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the contextual device data comprises a frequency of use metric for each installed application, and selecting the customized content is based at least in part on applications with the highest or lowest frequency of use”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Wang", US 20170180500 A1) in order to rank each application with certain criteria and assign points to the applications used by a user on a mobile terminal ([0074] Fig. 1, Fig. 2 table 2, ranking applications being used on mobile terminal, selecting and pushing content based on the ranked application, user behavior) because it would improve the performance of electronic devices having certain application pushed toward them (Wong [0002-0004])
Claim 19 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 19 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the contextual device data includes information regarding the presence or absence of one or more specific applications or application types on the mobile computing device, and selecting the customized content is based at least in part on applications or application types present on or absent from the device”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Pereira", US 20130346268 A1) in order to determine the available applications being used on mobile devices ([0055-0056] the application marketplace server 104 may identify mobile applications available to the particular user that are both specific to the particular user as an individual (e.g., "user-specific"), and specific to a group in which the particular user is associated with (e.g., "group-specific")) because it would help grouping applications and allow users of mobile devices to search for particular content and titles and provide mechanisms to narrow down the applications that a user may want to download (Pereira [0004])
Claim 20 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11716400.
Limitations of the claim 20 in the instant application 19221575 “wherein the customized content comprises a software application, a configuration file for a software application, a multimedia file or stream, a digital advertisement, or a notification”, which is not explicitly stated in claim 1 of the US Patent 11716400. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 11716400 in view of ("Besehanic", US 20130111511A1) in order to include in the content a software application or notification or configuration file ([0023] he schedule notifier 102 of the illustrated example determines that “Law and Order” will be presented in Chicago on Channel 4 at 5:00 P.M. CST and provides this schedule information to the user 104 through, for example, an electronic mail message (“email”), a pop-up window, a calendar alert, a text message and/or any other type of notification medium. (In some examples, a notification is not provided when the user 104 is in the home location 105.) If the user 104 of the illustrated example travels to a second location 107 associated with RF transceiver tower 110 (for example, Los Angeles), the schedule notifier 102 determines that “Law and Order” will be presented on Channel 2 at 3:00 P.M. PST and provides this schedule information to the user 104 through, for example, an email, a pop-up window, a calendar alert, a text message and/or any other type of notification medium.) because it would help push the right content with notification to the user based on changing the location of the mobile device (Besehanic [0002])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if overcoming the double patenting rejection, and 112(a), 112(b) rejections set forth in this office action.
The following is the reason for allowable subject matter in claims 1, 8, 15.
With regards to claims 1, 8, and 15, the instant claims require a content server, associated with a content provider, communicatively coupled to a data packet network and running one or more server-side components to selectively send customized content intended to improve the functionality of a mobile device to a mobile computing device, wherein particular customized content is selected for a particular mobile computing device based at least in part on contextual device data received for the particular mobile computing device; and a mobile computing device also communicatively coupled to the data packet network and running a client-side component configured to: monitor user actions performed on the device including at least application usage data indicative of user engagement with particular applications installed on the device, generate and continuously update, based at least in part on the monitored user actions, contextual device data associated with the device, send to the one or more server-side software components a request for customized content, the request including the contextual device data, receive, from the one or more server-side components responsive to the request, customized content as determined by the content provider based at least in part on the contextual device data, and perform a silent installation of the received customized content on the device, being defined as an installation that is initiated without requiring user action.
Meanwhile, the closest prior arts of record (“Besehanic”, US 20130111511 A1), (“Pandit”, US 20120222025 A1) fails to fairly teach or suggest information server attached to content provider in a communication network with server element to choose specific content to enhance the work of a mobile device, wherein the specific content is picked to be downloaded on mobile device based on contextual and attribute device information, monitor the user work on the mobile device which includes applications usage, produce and update based on the monitored information contextual attribute attached to the mobile device, transmit to the server side a request for specific content, wherein the request has contextual attribute of the mobile device, obtain from the server side based on the request a customized content in response to the contextual attribute of the mobile device, conduct a silent installation of the content on the mobile device without user interaction.
Thus, no other prior art of record fairly teaches or suggests the instant claim, as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights