DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 06 August 2025. Claims 11 and 21 were previously amended. No other claim has been amended. Claim 5 had been previously canceled. No new claim has been added. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending in the application and have been considered below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 February 2024 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last element of the claim recites “that the user of is outside a predetermined distance to the host computer” (emphasis added). It appears that the word “of” is a remnant of the previous amendment and needs to be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that ["The Office Action states that "[t]his action is in response to communication filed on 06 December 2024. No claim has been amended." See Office Action, p. 2. This assertion is incorrect; the response filed on December 6, 2024 included amendments to claims 11 and 21. These amendments are not addressed in the Office Action. Accordingly, Applicant requests a new non-final Office Action that addresses the amendments filed in the previous response" (Page 9)].
The argument described above has been considered, and they are persuasive. Therefore, rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made, citing secondary reference GOODSITT, and the new reference CECH et al. (US20170238174A1). See also claim 11 and 21 rejections below.
Moreover, Applicant has previously argued that [“Best does not teach that this connection is maintained while the connection between the mobile device and the server is terminated. Best is silent with regards to when the messaging server is sending this instruction or what the connection status between the mobile device and the messaging server is when this occurs, or any other condition. In other words, Best does not teach maintaining the second connection while terminating the first connection. Furthermore, Best explicitly defines "connection and disconnection" as "starting and stopping of replication functionality". (Best, , ¶68.) As mentioned, Best states: "In some examples, messaging server 116 can also send an instruction to auxiliary computing device 124 to cease execution of web application 712." (Best, , ¶67.) If the auxiliary computing device is no longer executing the web application, then it is necessarily no longer performing the replication functionality and is, by definition, disconnected” (Page 12)]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
BEST teaches that the auxiliary device generates code, then establishes connection to the Messaging server (see fig. 12, step 1215). The mobile device then establishes connection to the messaging server via capturing the generated code (see fig. 12, step 1228). Then, once the mobile computing device connection with the server is terminated (i.e. guest computer first connection), the second connection between the auxiliary computing device (host computer) and the server is still in place as that connection is established beforehand (see claim 1 rejection below for further details).
Thus, the combination of YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST adequately discloses applicant's claimed limitation. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicants that during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG (US20200213403A1) in view of GOODSITT et al. (US20200012777A1) and further view of PANDIARAJAN et al. (US20150178721A1) and further view of BEST (US20160381114A1).
As to claim 1, YANG teaches a method for execution on a server configured to manage a temporary interim connection for a guest computer for secure delivery of content data from the guest computer to a host computer (See fig. 1, par. 0026, wherein the system can include information transmission server 11, first device 12, and second device 13. Then, a connection is established between second device 13 and information transmission server 11. First device 12 can send information that is to be transmitted to information transmission server 11, where information transmission server 11 is used as a transition party, and sends the information to second device 13 by using the established connection; as taught by YANG), the method comprising: receiving input data from the host computer, the input data generated from an input device of the host computer by an interaction between a user and the input device of the host computer indicating a request to establish the interim connection between the guest computer and the host computer (see fig. 3, par. 0065, wherein in step 306, the PC opens the server address in the browser to request a connection to the server. For example, a user can input t.cn/ma on the PC to request a connection to the information transmission server; as taught by YANG); generating a connection identifier in response to receiving the input data confirming the interaction between the user and the host computer (see fig. 3, par. 0066, wherein in step 308, the server assigns a unique identifier to the PC; as taught by YANG), the connection identifier configured to establish the interim connection between the guest computer and the host computer through the server (see fig. 2, pars. 0037-0040, steps 202-206, wherein in step 202, the second device receives the unique identifier that is allocated by the information transmission server and corresponds to the connection. The information transmission server assigns a unique identifier that corresponds uniquely to the current connection and sends the unique identifier to the second device. In step 206, the second device transmits the unique identifier to the first device in a predetermined information transmission method; as taught by YANG); causing a transmission of the connection identifier from the server to the host computer (see fig. 2, par. 0038, wherein the information transmission server can assign a unique identifier that corresponds uniquely to the current connection and sends the unique identifier to the second device; as taught by YANG), the transmission of the connection identifier causing a display of a graphical element on a screen of the host computer, the graphical element configured for visually conveying the connection identifier, wherein the display of the graphical element enables communication of connection identifier to the guest computer (see fig. 2, par. 0041, wherein the second device can include a unique identifier in a two-dimensional code and display the two-dimensional code, and the first device scans the two-dimensional code to obtain the unique identifier. The second device can also send a unique identifier to the first device by using voiceprint transmission; as taught by YANG); receiving a confirmation input from the guest computer, the confirmation input causing the server to establish the interim connection between the guest computer and the host computer through the server, wherein the confirmation input comprises the connection identifier (see fig. 2, par. 0042, wherein in step 208, the first device sends the unique identifier to the information transmission server; also see par. 0047, wherein in step 210, the information transmission server sends the target information to the second device corresponding to the unique identifier; as taught by YANG); in response to receiving the confirmation input from the guest computer, causing an initiation of the interim connection between the guest computer and the host computer using the connection identifier (see fig. 3, par. 0076, wherein in step 316, the mobile phone combines the unique identifier and the link address, and sends the unique identifier and the link address to the server; and see par. 0078, wherein in step 318, the server sends the link address to the PC within the validity period of the unique identifier; as taught by YANG), wherein the interim connection comprises a first connection between the guest computer and the server and a second connection between the host computer and the server (See fig. 1, par. 0026, wherein a connection is established between second device 13 and information transmission server 11. First device 12 can send information that is to be transmitted to information transmission server 11, where information transmission server 11 is used as a transition party, and sends the information to second device 13 by using the established connection; as taught by YANG); wherein the server regulates subsequent processes for generating new connection identifiers, to prevent occurrences where one or more new connection identifiers are identical to the connection identifier (see par. 0029; wherein assuming that the second device requests to connect to a server (i.e. an information transmission server), the server can generate a unique ID corresponding to the current connection [in other words, implying prevention or reduction of occurrences where connection identifiers are identical; as taught by YANG).
YANG does not explicitly teach confirming that the user is physically present at the host computer based on the input data; and the interim connection enables secure delivery of the content data from the guest computer to the host computer; and terminating the first connection of the interim connection while maintaining the second connection of the interim connection in response to a detection of one or more events at the server.
In similar field of endeavor, GOODSITT teaches confirming that the user is physically present at the host computer based on the input data (see figs. 1-6C, for example see fig. 2, par. 0020, wherein a user may submit an identification card (e.g., access badge, keycard, magnetic strip card, proximity card, Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC Card), Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) compliant card, credit card, debit card) that in disclosed embodiments is then read by a device. In other embodiments a numeric PIN or alphanumeric password is received from a user associated with the identification card. Yet other embodiments may employ an identification form other than a card, such as a radiofrequency identification (RFID) fob, a universal serial bus (USB) fob, a physical key, or other form of physical identification credential; See also fig. 3, step 305, par. 0072; as taught by GOODSITT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the YANG method to include the teachings of GOODSITT for confirming that the user is physically present at the host computer based on the input data. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it may provide an improved authorization scheme that solves issues identified with existing authentication mechanisms, such as single factor (e.g., PIN-based) authentication, which may be susceptible to being compromised. Further, by using more secure authorization methods, the risks of an un-trusted third party discovering a security key through eavesdropping may be reduced, speed of pairing between the two devices may be increased, and the amount of overhead that is required to share security keys may be reduced over pre-existing systems (see also GOODSITT, par. 0004).
YANG and GOODSITT do not explicitly teach and the interim connection enables secure delivery of the content data from the guest computer to the host computer; and terminating the first connection of the interim connection while maintaining the second connection of the interim connection in response to a detection of one or more events at the server.
In similar field of endeavor, PANDIARAJAN teaches the interim connection enables secure delivery of the content data from the guest computer to the host computer (see figs. 1-4, pars. 0024-0063, for example fig. 3B, par. 0053, wherein FIG. 3B shows a flow diagram illustratively showing steps of a method 350 for dynamically generating of a QR code for securely transferring money and/or credits between two mobile device users; or par. 0058, wherein in order to make the use of the QR codes more secure, the QR codes can use encryption; as taught by PANDIARAJAN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the YANG and GOODSITT method to include the teachings of PANDIARAJAN wherein the interim connection enables secure delivery of the content data from the guest computer to the host computer. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as the reading of a QR code requires a direct line-of-sight between the QR code and the QR reader/camera, to enable the reader/camera to obtain an image of the code. As such, a user can limit access to a QR code by monitoring lines-of-sight to the QR code. In at least this respect, QR codes cannot readily be eavesdropped upon by devices not visible to the user. A QR code can thus be kept secure by limiting the period of time it is displayed or exposed, and/or monitoring the line-of-sight to the QR code (PANDIARAJAN, par. 0004).
YANG, GOODSITT and PANDIARAJAN do not explicitly teach and terminating the first connection of the interim connection while maintaining the second connection of the interim connection in response to a detection of one or more events at the server.
In similar field of endeavor, BEST teaches and terminating the first connection of the interim connection while maintaining the second connection of the interim connection in response to a detection of one or more events at the server (see figs. 1-3 and 12, for example see fig. 12, steps 1215 and 1228, par. 0077, wherein at block 1215, auxiliary computing device 124 a generates a code, and establishes a connection with messaging server 116 a. The code can be, for example, a fingerprint of the public key of auxiliary computing device 124 a, and the connection established with messaging server 116 a can therefore be identified with that fingerprint; see also par. 0079, wherein once mobile computing device 104 a-1 has captured the code displayed by auxiliary computing device 124 a, mobile computing device 104 a-1 establishes a connection with messaging server 116 a at block 1228. For example, mobile computing device 104 a-1 can send a message to messaging server 116 a that includes the fingerprint decoded from the QR code displayed by auxiliary computing device 124 a; see also par. 0080, wherein Messaging server 116 a, having already received a connection request from auxiliary computing device 124 a using that same fingerprint, can thus route the message sent at block 1228 to auxiliary computing device 124 a, thus establishing a session between mobile computing device 104 a-1 and auxiliary computing device 124 a; see also par. 0067, wherein as The performance of steps 330-360 can be repeated for as long as replication is desirable. In order to terminate replication of messaging application 208 on auxiliary computing device 104-1, input selecting disconnection element 808 on mobile computing device 104-1 can be provided to processor 200. Selection of element 808 causes mobile computing device to transmit a message to messaging server 116 to either delete or retain but deactivate (for instance, via a bit flag in database 266) the association stored at step 328. After sending the deactivation message, mobile computing device
104-1 can reactivate or fully re-enable GUI layer 704, and cease sending GUI output data to messaging server 116; see also [Therefore, the auxiliary device generates code, then establishes connection to the Messaging server; The mobile device then establishes connection to the messaging server via capturing the generated code; then after termination of mobile computing device connection with the server (i.e. guest computer first connection), the second connection between the auxiliary computing device (host computer) and the server is still in place]; as taught by BEST).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the YANG, GOODSITT and PANDIARAJAN method to include the teachings of BEST for terminating the first connection of the interim connection while maintaining the second connection of the interim connection in response to a detection of one or more events at the server. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination so that the user could decide to terminate the connection in a situation where device privacy is needed while keeping the server connection, thus resulting greater utility for the finished product.
As to claim 2, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 1. YANG further teaches wherein the connection identifier is embedded in an image configured to visually communicate the connection identifier from the host computer to the guest computer capturing the image with an image sensor (see fig. 2, par. 0041, wherein the second device can include a unique identifier in a two-dimensional code and display the two-dimensional code, and the first device scans the two-dimensional code to obtain the unique identifier; as taught by YANG), wherein receipt of the connection identifier at the guest computer causes the guest computer to send the confirmation input to the server (see fig. 3, par. 0076, wherein in step 316, the mobile phone combines the unique identifier and the link address, and sends the unique identifier and the link address to the server; as taught by YANG).
As to claim 3, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 1. YANG further teaches wherein the one or more events causing the termination of the interim connection comprises determining that the interim connection has not been used for a predetermined time period (see Table 1, par. 0031, wherein the server can clear the unique identifier ID if the first device has not transmitted information to the second device during a validity period T; as taught by YANG).
As to claim 6, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 1. YANG further teaches the server configured to restrict storage of the content data on a storage device controlled by the server (see fig. 2, par. 0006, regarding sending the unique identifier and the target information to the server, so that the server forwards the target information to the opposite device [thus forwards the information and does not store it]; as taught by YANG).
As to claim 7, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 1. YANG further teaches wherein the delivery of the content data from the guest computer to the host computer causes the host computer to display a rendering of the content data on the screen of the host computer (see fig. 2, par. 0049, wherein in step 212, the second device displays the target information. For example, the second device can open web pages or pictures corresponding to link addresses in the local browser; as taught by YANG).
As to claim 8, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 1. YANG further teaches wherein termination of the interim connection causes the server to invalidate the connection identifier preventing the guest computer from providing additional content data (see Table 1, par. 0031, wherein the server clears the unique identifier ID if the first device has not transmitted information to the second device during a validity period T; par. 0033, if first device 12 needs to transmit another link address to second device 13 after transmitting the previous link address, the server assigns another unique identifier ID, and first device 12 also needs to obtain the another ID for another information transmission [i.e. the old ID is invalidated];as taught by YANG).
Claims 11 amounts to the computing device for executing most elements of the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites additional limitations to those of claim 1 (underlined): wherein the input data includes a hardware identifier of the input; confirming that the user is physically present at the host computer based on the hardware identifier in the input data.
Correspondingly, GOODSITT teaches these new limitations too: wherein the input data includes a hardware identifier of the input; confirming that the user is physically present at the host computer based on the hardware identifier in the input data (see figs. 1-6C, for example see fig. 2, par. 0020, wherein a user may submit an identification card (e.g., access badge, keycard, magnetic strip card, proximity card, Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC Card), Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) compliant card, credit card, debit card) that in disclosed embodiments is then read by a device. In other embodiments a numeric PIN or alphanumeric password is received from a user associated with the identification card. Yet other embodiments may employ an identification form other than a card, such as a radiofrequency identification (RFID) fob, a universal serial bus (USB) fob, a physical key, or other form of physical identification credential; See also fig. 3, step 305, par. 0072; as taught by GOODSITT) [Thus, by utilizing a RFID fob or a USB fob, the input data will include the hardware identifier of the fob, and confirms physical presence of the user. Therefore, the combination of YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teaches all elements of claim 11] .
As to claim 12, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 11. YANG further teaches wherein the connection identifier is embedded in an image configured to visually communicate the connection identifier from the host computer to the guest computer using a camera to capture connection identifier through the image with an image sensor (see fig. 2, par. 0041, wherein the second device can include a unique identifier in a two-dimensional code and display the two-dimensional code, and the first device scans the two-dimensional code to obtain the unique identifier; as taught by YANG), wherein receipt of the connection identifier at the guest computer causes the guest computer to send the confirmation input to the computing device (see fig. 3, par. 0076, wherein in step 316, the mobile phone combines the unique identifier and the link address, and sends the unique identifier and the link address to the server; as taught by YANG). PANDIARAJAN further teaches wherein the image further communicates an encryption key for encrypting the content data communicated between the host device and the guest computer (see figs. 1-4, par. 0058, wherein in order to make the use of the QR codes more secure, the QR codes can use encryption; as taught by PANDIARAJAN).
As to claim 13, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 11. YANG further teaches wherein the one or more events causing the termination of the interim connection comprises at least one of receiving a supplemental input from the guest computer requesting termination of the interim connection, determining that the interim connection has not been used for a predetermined time period, or determining that a predetermined amount of data has been communicate over the interim connection (see Table 1, par. 0031, wherein the server can clear the unique identifier ID if the first device has not transmitted information to the second device during a validity period T; as taught by YANG).
As to claim 15, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 11. YANG further teaches wherein the interim connection comprises a first connection between the guest computer and a server and a second connection between the host computer and the server (See fig. 1, par. 0026, wherein a connection is established between second device 13 and information transmission server 11. First device 12 can send information that is to be transmitted to information transmission server 11, where information transmission server 11 is used as a transition party, and sends the information to second device 13 by using the established connection; as taught by YANG); wherein the secure delivery of the content data from the guest computer to the host computer comprises communicating the content data from the guest computer to the server, wherein the server relays the content data to the host computer in response to receiving the content data at the server (see fig. 2, par. 0042, wherein in step 208, the first device sends target information that is to be transmitted and the unique identifier to the information transmission server; and par. 0047, wherein in step 210, the information transmission server sends the target information to the second device corresponding to the unique identifier; as taught by YANG).
Claim 16 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 17 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 18 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system of claim 13. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 13 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 20 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system of claim 15. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 15 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG (US20200213403A1) in view of GOODSITT et al. (US20200012777A1) and further view of PANDIARAJAN et al. (US20150178721A1) and further view of BEST (US20160381114A1) and further view of CECH et al. (US20170238174A1).
As to claim 21, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 1. YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more events causing the termination of the first or second connection of the interim connection comprises determining, based on signals from a proximity sensor, that the user of is outside a predetermined distance to the host computer.
In similar field of endeavor, CECH teaches wherein the one or more events causing the termination of the first or second connection of the interim connection comprises determining, based on signals from a proximity sensor, that the user of is outside a predetermined distance to the host computer (see par. 0043, wherein the system is configured so that once the primary electronic device is connected to the vehicle via the body area network, the device would remain connected to the vehicle network so long as the device is within the vehicle. The device location could be established via wireless protocol methods—such as Bluetooth—or may be established via location sensors. For example, the location could be detected using a proximity sensor such as a charging pad or an electric field (i.e., capacitive type) proximity sensor; see also par. 0044; as taught by CECH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST method to include the teachings of CECH wherein the one or more events causing the termination of the first or second connection of the interim connection comprises determining, based on signals from a proximity sensor, that the user of is outside a predetermined distance to the host computer. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is advantageous for security reasons for devices that are connected to a server via short range communication to disconnect from the server once they are out of range (see also CECH, par. 0010).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG (US20200213403A1) in view of GOODSITT et al. (US20200012777A1) and further view of PANDIARAJAN et al. (US20150178721A1) and further view of BEST (US20160381114A1) and further view of PARK et al. (KR20150015929A).
As to claim 4, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 1. YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST do not teach wherein the one or more events causing the termination of the temporary connection comprises receiving a supplemental input from the host computer requesting termination of the interim connection.
In similar field of endeavor, PARK teaches wherein the one or more events causing the termination of the temporary connection comprises receiving a supplemental input from the host computer requesting termination of the interim connection (see Page 4, par. 11, wherein virtual connections can be released via certain conditions. When the user of the mobile device terminates the web browser of the PC, the input control server can detect this and release the virtual connection. Alternatively, for privacy protection, if a certain time has elapsed since the virtual connection was established, the virtual connection can be automatically released. Alternatively, if there is no input to the mobile device via the PC for a predetermined time after the virtual connection is established, the virtual connection can be automatically released; as taught by PARK).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST method to include the teachings of PARK wherein the one or more events causing the termination of the temporary connection comprises receiving a supplemental input from the host computer requesting termination of the interim connection. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as mobile devices are becoming popular as portable and convenient communication means. The use of multimedia contents such as games, music appreciation, and video watching as well as communication such as voice call, video call, and chat using a mobile device such as a smart phone, a tablet PC, and a notebook is becoming active. The input means of the mobile device is mainly a voice, a camera, a touch screen, and the like. Especially, in the case of a touch screen, input is inconvenient compared to a personal computer due to its limited size (PARK, page 2, par. 5).
Claim 19 amounts to the computing device of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 4 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claims 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG (US20200213403A1) in view of GOODSITT et al. (US20200012777A1) and further view of PANDIARAJAN et al. (US20150178721A1) and further view of BEST (US20160381114A1) and further view of LI et al. (US8610730B1).
As to claim 9, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST teach the limitations of claim 1. YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST do not teach wherein a rendering of the content data is automatically displayed in response to detecting that the host computer is in a predetermined state, wherein the predetermined state comprises a lock screen mode or a bulletin board mode, wherein the rendering of the content data is persistently displayed in the predetermined state until the computing device transitions out of the predetermined state.
In similar field of endeavor, LI teaches wherein the rendering of the content data is automatically displayed in response to detecting that the host computer is in a predetermined state, wherein the predetermined state comprises a lock screen mode or a bulletin board mode, wherein the rendering of the content data is persistently displayed in the predetermined state until the computing device transitions out of the predetermined state (see col. 10, ln. 33, wherein an arbitrary remote display may become projectable; For example, the owner of the remote display may start a browser on the remote display's computer and accesses the remote projection service on the web, i.e., via an HTTP request. In one example implementation, a projection display application may be run in the browse; as taught by LI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN and BEST method to include the teachings of LI wherein the rendering of the content data is automatically displayed in response to detecting that the host computer is in a predetermined state, wherein the predetermined state comprises a lock screen mode or a bulletin board mode, wherein the rendering of the content data is persistently displayed in the predetermined state until the computing device transitions out of the predetermined state. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as the limited viewing space on a mobile device's display screen can sometimes make it difficult to see small details on the graphical user interface (GUI), or to review photos and share screen information with others. Handheld light projection-based projection devices have shown promise in enlarging the output area of a mobile application, particularly because they offer the advantage of being able to leverage nearly any physical surface for output projection. However, handheld light projection-based interaction presents several issues for mobile users. For example, since few mobile phones are currently equipped with an embedded projector, the projection-based interaction may require additional hardware, such as a dedicated light projector (LI, col. 1, ln. 22).
As to claim 10, YANG, GOODSITT, PANDIARAJAN, BEST and LI teach the limitations of claim 9. LI further teaches wherein the rendering of the content data can be modified by a user input performed by any user of the host device, wherein a modification includes modifications with respect to a size and a position of the rendered content within the user interface (see fig. 2, col. 5, ln. 16, wherein adjustments and/or refinements to the size and positioning of the display image on the remote display 100 may be implemented; as taught by LI).
Claim 14 amounts to the computing device of claim 9. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 9 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Publication Number
Filing Date
Title
US20130124855A1
2012-08-29
Using qr codes for authenticating users to atms and other secure machines for cardless transactions
US20180247287A1
2016-08-19
Methods and systems for performing a mobile-to-business anywhere ecommerce transaction using a mobile device
US20130278622A1
2013-04-23
Secure and Authenticated Transactions with Mobile Devices
US20130262309A1
2012-09-02
Method and System for Secure Mobile Payment
US9010627B1
2012-09-26
Initiating a kiosk transaction
US20130124411A1
2011-11-15
Techniques for automated teller machine (atm) transactions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOOROSH NEHCHIRI whose telephone number is (408)918-7643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-7 PST.
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, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/KOOROSH NEHCHIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174