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 .
Application # 19/232,100 was filed on 6/9/2025.
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
An IDS filed on 9/10/2025 has been fully considered and entered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to claims 1, 8, 15, they recite(s) receiving a configuration instruction which falls under mental process wherein one can receiving configuration instruction/direction on a piece of paper similar to receiving printed instructions; determine a configuration setting for the plurality of heterogenous client devices which also falls under mental process wherein one can check all the devices based on the printed configuration instruction to see if there is configuration setting on the device; transmitting the configuration setting to each device of the plurality of heterogenous client devices wherein entering a particular setting in the device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim recites using administrator device to perform receiving configuration instruction. The device in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer device. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because administrator devices, client devices to perform receiving and identifying and transmitting steps. The device in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer device does not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to an amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim recites using administrator device to perform receiving configuration instruction. The device in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer device. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because administrator devices, client devices to perform receiving and identifying and transmitting steps. The device in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer device does not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17 respectively rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8, 10, 8, 16, 8 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,652,689 (hereinafter ‘689 patent) in view of Haight et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2015/0074765 (hereinafter Haight) in view of Yu et al. U.S. Patent Publication # (hereinafter Yu)
Although the claims in the instant application and the ‘689 Patent are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they container similar subject as follows:
-receiving from the administrator device, a configuration instruction, determining a configuration setting.
‘689 Patent does not teach “setting for the plurality of heterogeneous client devices, wherein the configuration instruction includes a plurality of device identifiers, corresponding to the plurality of heterogeneous client devices; and transmitting the configuration setting to each client device of the plurality of heterogeneous client devices, wherein the configuration setting is configured to update a setting of the respective client device.”
Haight teaches receiving, from the administrator device, a configuration instruction (i.e. mapping settings to devices wherein certain settings are whether returns or gift card transactions are permitted, only allow sales transactions, also including POS parameters included in the settings) (Paragraph 37-39);
-responsive to receiving the configuration instruction: determining, based on the configuration instruction, a configuration setting (i.e. accepting credit cards, gift cards, certain parameters, only sales transactions etc.) for the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (i.e. identical settings are provided to all client devices)(Paragraph 36-37), wherein the configuration instruction includes a plurality of device identifiers (i.e. universal device ID or UDID as the device identifier), corresponding to the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (i.e. for each thin client devices and POS device) (Paragraph 36-37); and
-transmitting the configuration setting to each client device of the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (i.e. setting are provided to all client devices) (Paragraph 37-38), wherein the configuration setting is configured to update a setting of the respective client device (i.e. coding directly into mappings portion of device profile, device and register identifiers wherein multiple device identifiers and corresponding register identifiers are stored and then saving an updated device profiles)(Paragraph 48-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Haight’s teaching in ‘689 Patent to come up with determining configuration setting for plurality of heterogeneous client devices and transmitting configuration setting to each client device wherein the configuration setting is configured to update the setting of the respective client device. The motivation for doing so would be to make sure all the devices are updated with latest configuration settings therefore, every device is uniform for providing services to customers.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 15-17, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haight et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2015/0074765 (hereinafter Haight) in view of Yu et al. U.S. Patent # 9,928,697 (hereinafter Yu)
With respect to claim 1, Haight teaches method performed by a management server configured to permit an administrator device to remotely update a plurality of heterogeneous client devices, the method comprising:
receiving, from the administrator device, a configuration instruction (i.e. mapping settings to devices wherein certain settings are whether returns or gift card transactions are permitted, only allow sales transactions, also including POS parameters included in the settings) (Paragraph 37-39);
-responsive to receiving the configuration instruction: determining, based on the configuration instruction, a configuration setting (i.e. accepting credit cards, gift cards, certain parameters, only sales transactions etc.) for the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (i.e. identical settings are provided to all client devices)(Paragraph 36-37), wherein the configuration instruction includes a plurality of device identifiers (i.e. universal device ID or UDID as the device identifier), corresponding to the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (i.e. for each thin client devices and POS device) (Paragraph 36-37); and
-transmitting the configuration setting to each client device of the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (i.e. setting are provided to all client devices) (Paragraph 37-38), wherein the configuration setting is configured to update a setting of the respective client device (i.e. coding directly into mappings portion of device profile, device and register identifiers wherein multiple device identifiers and corresponding register identifiers are stored and then saving an updated device profiles including updating application profile data)(Paragraph 48-50)
Although Haight teaches wherein the configuration setting is configured to update the respective client device (i.e. coding directly into mappings portion of device profile, device and register identifiers wherein multiple device identifiers and corresponding register identifiers are stored and then saving an updated device profiles including updating application profile data)(Paragraph 48-50) but Haight does not explicitly state updating a setting.
Yu teaches configuration setting is configured to update a setting of the respective client device (i.e. updating configuration setting for the POS device and updating the configuration of the POS application for the POS device)(claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to implement Yu’s teaching in Haight’s teaching to come up with updating a setting of the respective client device. The motivation for doing so would be to make sure all the devices are updated with latest configuration settings therefore, every device is uniform for providing services to customers.
With respect to claim 2, Haight and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but Haight further teaches further comprising: identifying, based on the configuration instruction, the configuration setting (i.e. accepting credit cards, gift cards, certain parameters, only sales transactions etc.) , wherein the configuration setting is configured to update a setting of a device component of a client device (i.e. updating the profile) identifying the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (Paragraph 48-50) wherein each client device of the plurality of heterogeneous client devices includes the device component (i.e. POS device)(Paragraph 48-50); and transmitting the configuration setting to each client device of the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (Paragraph 37-38)
With respect to claim 3, Haight and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but Haight further teaches wherein the configuration setting is configured to update a setting of a device component of a client device, and wherein the device component is one of an operating system, an installed application (i.e. application profile data is updated)(Paragraph 49, 38), a content item, or a device peripheral.
With respect to claim 5, Haight and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but Haight further teaches wherein the management server comprises a configuration management service, the method further comprising: providing, by the configuration management service to the administrator device (i.e. administrator for POS interface server), a graphical user interface that is configured to receive the configuration instruction (Paragraph 38-39)
With respect to claim 6, Haight and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but Haight further teaches wherein the management server comprises a configuration management service, the method further comprising: providing, by the configuration management service to the administrator device, an application programming interface that is configured to enable remote configuration of the plurality of heterogeneous client devices (Paragraph 38-40, 59)
With respect to claim 7, Haight and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but Haight further teaches wherein a first client device of the plurality of heterogeneous client devices includes a first set of device components (i.e. bar code readers, document scanners, card reader or numeric keypad) and a second client device of the plurality of heterogeneous client devices includes a second set of device components (i.e. bar code readers, document scanners, card reader or numeric keypad) (Paragraph 31, 59)
With respect to claims 8-10, 12-14 respectively, they recite similar limitations as claims 1-3, 5-7 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
With respect to claims 15-17, 18-20 respectively, they recite similar limitations as claims 1-3, 5-7 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haight et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2015/0074765 (hereinafter Haight) in view of Yu et al. U.S. Patent # 9,928,697 (hereinafter Yu) further in view of Cai et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0063367 (hereinafter Cai)
With respect to claim 4, Haight and Yu teaches the method of claim 1, but Haight further teaches wherein the configuration instruction is received as an encoded readable identifier.
Cai teaches wherein the configuration instruction is received as an encoded readable identifier (Paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Cai’s teaching in Haight and Yu’s teaching to come up with receiving configuration instruction as encoded readable identifier. The motivation for doing so would be so the technician can easily communicate configuration of the node for configuration settings thereby saving time.
With respect to claims 11, 16, they recite similar limitations as claim 4, therefore rejected under same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Wagreich et al. U.S. Patent # 10,630,572.
B). Truong et. U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0178099.
C). Alvarez et. U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0091850.
D). Appadurai et. U.S. Patent Publication # 2015/0033216.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights