Non-Final Office 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 .
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 21-29 and 35-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,367,118 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,367,118 B2 (hereinafter ‘118) contain every element of claims 21-29 and 35-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 21-29 and 35-40 of the instant application.
Referring to claim 21:
Claim 1 of ‘118 discloses a method for operating one or more mobile device management (MDM) agents on a system having at least one processor (A system for operating one or more mobile device management (MDM) agents comprising at least one processor—the system is a means for carrying out the method of claim 21).
Claim 1 of ‘118 discloses detecting a triggering event during operation of a first MDM agent; designating a second MDM agent as a new active agent; determining whether a first data generated by the first MDM agent is useable for continued operations by the second MDM agent; if the first data is determined to be useable by the second MDM agent, then activating the second MDM agent for continued operations using the first data; and if the first data is determined to be not useable by the second MDM agent, then activating the second MDM agent with known good data.
Referring to claim 22, claim 2 of ‘118 discloses wherein detecting a triggering event during operation of a first MDM agent comprises detecting a crash of the first MDM agent.
Referring to claim 23, claim 3 of ‘118 discloses wherein detecting a triggering event during operation of a first MDM agent comprises detecting a commands reachability failure.
Referring to claim 24, claim 4 of ‘118 discloses wherein detecting a triggering event during operation of a first MDM agent comprises detecting a manual initiation of an MDM agent rollback.
Referring to claim 25, claim 6 of ‘118 discloses wherein designating a second MDM agent as a new active agent comprises re-designating the second MDM agent from being an inactive agent to being the new active agent.
Referring to claim 26, claim 7 of ‘118 discloses wherein the second MDM agent comprises an updated version of the first MDM agent.
Referring to claim 27, claim 1 of ‘118 discloses wherein the operations further comprise: after detecting the triggering event, designating the first MDM agent as a bad agent (detecting a triggering event during operation of a first MDM agent; designating the first MDM agent as a bad agent).
Referring to claim 28, claim 5 of ‘118 discloses wherein designating the first MDM agent as a bad agent comprises changing a designation of the first MDM agent from an active agent to an inactive agent.
Referring to claim 29, claim 1 of ‘118 anticipates all the limitations.
Referring to claim 35:
Claim 1 of ‘118 discloses a system for operating one or more mobile device applications, comprising: at least one processor; a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-readable instructions configured to perform operations.
Claim 1 of ‘118 discloses detecting a triggering event during operation of a first mobile device application (in col. 1, lines 33-34 and col. 3, lines 11-15, ‘118 defines an MDM agent as an application—an MDM agent is an application as well).
Claim 1 of ‘118 discloses designating a second mobile device application (a second MDM agent) as a new active application; determining whether a first data generated by the first mobile device application (first MDM agent) is useable for continued operations by the second mobile device application (second MDM agent); if the first data is determined to be useable by the mobile device application (MDM agent), then activating the second mobile device application (second MDM agent) for continued operations using the first data; and if the first data is determined to be not useable by the mobile device application (MDM agent), then activating the mobile device application with known good data.
Referring to claim 36, claims 2-4 of ‘118 disclose wherein detecting a triggering event during operation of a first mobile device application comprises: at least one of: detecting a crash of the first mobile device application (claim 2 of ‘118); detecting a commands reachability failure of the first mobile device application (claim 3 of ‘118); or detecting a manual initiation of a mobile device application rollback (claim 4 of ‘118).
Referring to claim 37, claim 6 of ‘118 discloses wherein designating a second mobile device application as a new active application comprises re-designating the second mobile device application from being an inactive application to being the new active application.
Referring to claim 38, claim 7 of ‘118 discloses wherein the second mobile device application comprises an updated version of the first mobile device application.
Referring to claim 39, claim 1 of ‘118 discloses wherein the operations further comprise: after detecting the triggering event, designating the first mobile device application as a bad application (detecting a triggering event during operation of a first MDM agent; designating the first MDM agent as a bad agent).
Referring to claim 40, claim 5 of ‘118 discloses wherein designating the first mobile device application as a bad application comprises changing a designation of the first mobile device application from an active application to an inactive application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21-29 and 35-40 would be allowable if the non-statutory double patenting rejection was overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: US 2008/0070495 A1 discloses a system for managing mobile devices The system may include a mobile device management (MDM) application, an MDM server, and an MDM database. US 2015/0319251 A1 (on IDS) discloses a mobile device management system with management agents. When a first management agent is unable to complete a task, a second management may continue the task. The management agents share management-related information with each other. US 2023/0370530 A1 (on IDS) discloses that a device has a primary MDM client that is active and a secondary MDM client that is inactive. In response to a trigger, the MDM clients are switched.
With respect to claim 21, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, a method for operating one or more mobile device management (MDM) agents on a system having at least one processor, comprising: designating a second MDM agent as a new active agent; determining whether a first data generated by the first MDM agent is useable for continued operations by the second MDM agent; if the first data is determined to be useable by the second MDM agent, then activating the second MDM agent for continued operations using the first data; and if the first data is determined to be not useable by the second MDM agent, then activating the second MDM agent with known good data.
With respect to claim 29, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, a system for operating one or more mobile device management (MDM) agents, comprising: at least one processor; a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-readable instructions configured to perform operations including at least: designating a second MDM agent as a new active agent; determining whether a first data generated by the first MDM agent is useable for continued operations by the second MDM agent; if the first data is determined to be useable by the second MDM agent, then activating the second MDM agent for continued operations using the first data; and if the first data is determined to be not useable by the second MDM agent, then activating the second MDM agent with known good data.
With respect to claim 35, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, a system for operating one or more mobile device applications, comprising: at least one processor; a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-readable instructions configured to perform operations including at least: designating a second mobile device application as a new active agent; determining whether a first data generated by the first mobile device application is useable for continued operations by the second mobile device application; if the first data is determined to be useable by the mobile device application, then activating the second mobile device application for continued operations using the first data; and if the first data is determined to be not useable by the second mobile device application, then activating the second MDM agent with known good data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights