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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 is missing a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 2006/0004911) in view of Chavda et al. (US 2007/0276937) and Karimli et al. (US 2017/0264742).
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses a method, comprising: identifying a browser associated with a user of a computer system (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 26-32, hardware/software platforms disclosed; see also ¶ 35-40, e.g., instant messaging GUI disclosed);
in response to identifying the browser, causing a first connection to be established between the computer system and one or more other computer systems (figs. 1-3, ¶ 26-32; see also ¶ 35-40, after initialization, active instant messaging clients can communicate directly with each other);
causing a second connection to be established between the computer system and a service (figs. 1-3, ¶ 26-32; see also ¶ 35-40, instant messaging client/server connection);
while the computer system is connected to the one or more other computer systems via the first connection and while the computer system is connected to the service via the second connection, identifying first data concerning the browser (figs. 1-3, ¶ 26-33, instant messaging session disclosed; see also ¶ 35-40);
and in accordance with a determination that the first data does not include presence data, sending the message corresponding to the first data via the second connection (figs. 1-3, ¶ 26-33, instant messaging session disclosed; see also ¶ 35-40, e.g., server authenticates a user and maintains session).
Becker fails to explicitly disclose a first type of connection, one or more other computer systems of the user; a second type of connection, wherein the second type of connection is different from the first type of connection; and in response to identifying the first data concerning the browser: in accordance with a determination that the first data includes presence data concerning the browser, sending a message corresponding to the first data via the first type of connection between the computer system and the one or more other computer systems.
Chavda teaches one or more other computer systems of the user (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 2-6, user signed in to a collaboration server using many devices at the same time, i.e., multiple endpoints; see also ¶ 15, ¶ 19-27);
and in response to identifying the first data concerning the browser: in accordance with a determination that the first data includes presence data concerning the browser, sending a message corresponding to the first data via the first type of connection between the computer system and the one or more other computer systems (figs. 1-3, ¶ 2-6; see also ¶ 15, ¶ 19-27, presence aggregation server notifies each of the publisher’s endpoints of the aggregated state).
Becker and Chavda are both directed to collaboration with networked computer devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Becker with the presence aggregation of Chavda since such a modification provides for aggregating user presence across multiple endpoints (Chavda, ¶ 15) and provides a “person-centric” presence model to specify presence for desired modes of communication (Chavda, ¶ 16).
Karimli teaches a first type of connection, a second type of connection, wherein the second type of connection is different from the first type of connection (fig. 1, figs. 4-5, ¶ 12-20, related devices associated with same account, line, etc. disclosed; related devices connected via presence server, related devices may obtain each other’s presence information via peer-to-peer connection; see also ¶ 33, ¶ 37, ¶ 40-52).
Becker in view of Chavda and Karimli are both directed to presence data sharing between connected devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Becker in view of Chavda with the connections of Karimli since such a modification enables sharing with related devices (Karimli, abstract, ¶ 12) and provides capabilities information to related devices (Karimli, ¶ 17).
Regarding claim 2, Karimli further teaches wherein the first type of connection is a peer-to-peer connection (fig. 1, figs. 4-5, ¶ 12-20, related devices associated with same account, line, etc. disclosed; related devices may obtain each other’s presence information via peer-to-peer connection; see also ¶ 33, ¶ 37, ¶ 40-52).
Regarding claim 3, Karimli further teaches wherein the first type of connection includes a client-server connection (fig. 1, figs. 4-5, ¶ 12-20, related devices associated with same account, line, etc. disclosed; related devices connected via presence server; see also ¶ 33, ¶ 37, ¶ 40-52).
Regarding claim 4, Becker discloses wherein the computer system is connected to the one or more other computer systems via the first type of connection between the computer system and the one or more other computer systems while being concurrently connected to the service via the second type of connection between the computer system and the service (figs. 1-3, ¶ 26-32; see also ¶ 35-40, after initialization, active instant messaging clients can communicate directly with each other; instant messaging client/server connection disclosed).
Regarding claim 5, Becker discloses after detecting the presence of the user with respect to the browser and while the first type of connection between the computer system and the one or more other computer systems is established, detecting that the presence of the user is no longer detected with respect to the browser; and in response to detecting that the presence of the user is no longer detected with respect to the browser, causing the first type of connection between the computer system and the one or more other computer systems to be terminated (figs. 1-3, ¶ 26-32; see also ¶ 35-40, timeout termination disclosed).
Regarding claim 6, Chavda further teaches wherein the presence of the user is not detected while the browser is operating in the background (¶ 30-33, e.g., screen saver or machine lock).
Regarding claim 7, Becker discloses wherein the presence of the user is not detected in response to a browser application including the browser being exited (figs. 1-3, ¶ 26-32; see also ¶ 35-40, logged out or timeout termination disclosed).
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Karimli further teaches wherein the first type of connection is a decentralized connection, and wherein the second type of connection is a centralized connection (fig. 1, figs. 4-5, ¶ 12-20, related devices connected via presence server, related devices may obtain each other’s presence information via peer-to-peer connection; see also ¶ 33, ¶ 37, ¶ 40-52).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 22, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 23, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 24, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights