DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is FINAL.
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Amendment filed on 2/20/2026.
Application filed on 6/2/2022 with effective filing date of 6/4/2021 based on provisional applications 63/197248 and 63/252144.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent claims.
In the amendment, no claim has been amended.
Claims 19-20 have been added.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment filed on 2/20/2026 with additions of claims 19-20 made to the claims.
The specification filed on 2/20/2026 has been considered and approved by the examiner.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued on pages 14-20 for independent claims 1, 15-16 on three points. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
1. The cited references teach the claimed features
First the applicant argued that the cited arts Romm, Slavov, and Lu do not teach in a second mode, a first type of user interface object (e.g. a representation of content) is moved between two display regions while a second type of user interface object (e.g. application window) is prevented from being moved between the two display regions. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Romm teaches moving cursor between the two monitors in a separate screen setup, while preventing windows from being moved between the two separate systems ([0035]). Thus, Romm teaches the concept of testing for type of content being moved, allowing one type (e.g. displayed cursor) to be moved across two separate screen/systems while preventing other type (windows) to be moved across. Additionally, secondary art Slavov teaches additional types of content such as images/documents/files (representation of application content) can be dragged across devices in a collaborate mode (p. 5). Although Slavov is not explicitly teaching windows are being prevented from dragged across two devices, it is implicit that windows can not be dragged across the two devices because it is not listed as a type of content that can be dragged. Accordingly, Romm and Slavov both teach testing of type content being dragging across two separate devices, and allowing certain types to be dragged across – cursor from Romm, images/documents/files from Slavov, and preventing others such as windows being dragged across.
2. The rationale for combining the cited references leads to the claimed invention.
The applicant further argues the rationale for combining Romm and Slavov are not convincing; the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes, Romm teaches two different modes, in the two separate systems sharing the same input devices mode, only cursor is allowed to move across the devices, combining the teaching of Slavov would enable other types of content such as images/documents to be dragged across the two separate systems, providing convenience to the users.
3. The examiner’s rationales do not rely on hindsight
The applicant additionally argues the rationale to combine the arts uses hindsight bias, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes both Romm and Slavov teach two modes for sharing display and input devices for two separate systems, the only differences are the capabilities under two separate system mode, Romm only allows cursor to be passed from one system to another system, while Slavov enables more types of contents such as documents and images to be dragged across the two separate systems. It would be obvious to include the additional features taught by Slavov in Romm to enable users to drag more type of contents in the two system mode, to improve usability under this setup. Accordingly, the rationale to combine does not rely on hindsight.
The applicant further argues for dependent claim 17 that the cited arts failed to teach the second mode where the two computer system have a shared input device yet allowing representation of content to move between the two systems. The examiner notes Romm and Slavov together teach this combined scope of claim 17 and 1, where Romm teaches cursor to be dragged from one system to a second system, while Slavov teaches additional type of content to be dragged from one system to the second system.
The applicant additionally argues for all dependent claims that they are allowable for the same reason argued for their respective independent claims 1, 15, and 16. The examiner respectfully disagrees and counter asserts the same rationale set forth above.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 11/18/2025 comply/complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has/have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has/have been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The specification filed on 2/20/2026 has been considered and approved by the examiner.
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.
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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Romm (US Pub 20090282099, from IDS, hereinafter Romm), in view of “Huawei’s Harmony OS-equipped MatePad tablets are official” by Marlyan Slavov (Jun 2, 2021, hereinafter Slavov), and Lu et al. (US Pub 20230229300, hereinafter Lu).
Per claim 1, Romm teaches:
A method, comprising: (abstract, [0008-0009] a distributed multi-head systems where multiple clients with monitors can be configured by a server to show either a desktop across multiple monitors, or a desktop for each monitor where all desktops are controlled by a single collection of input devices);
at a first computer system having a first display generation component, wherein the first computer system is in communication with a first input device and a second computer system having a second display generation component different from the first display generation component: ([0020] Fig. 1 shows a first computer system – “Computing Device 1”, with a first set of input devices such as keyboard or mouse, where the first computer system/Computing Device 1 is connected to a second computer system – “Computing Device n”. The multiple computing devices each have a video output controller generating a display output shown on a monitor);
displaying, via the first display generation component, a first user interface in a first display region provided by the first display generation component, including displaying a first user interface object at a first location in the first display region and displaying a cursor in the first display region; ([0034-0035] Fig. 4B and 5B show two monitors each with a display region, where Monitor 1 including different objects (first user interface object), such as icons and a window in Fig. 4B, and a pointer/cursor on Monitor 1 in Fig. 5B);
while displaying the first user interface in the first display region provided by the first display generation component, detecting a first input via the first input device, wherein the first input includes a first movement and corresponds to a request for dragging the first user interface object across the first display region provided by the first display generation component in accordance with a first portion of the first movement followed by a request for dragging the first user interface object beyond the first display region provided by the first display generation component toward a second display region provided by the second display generation component in accordance with a second portion of the first movement; ([0034-0035] Fig. 4A-4B and Fig. 5A-5B shows that user can drag different objects such as window in Fig. 4B or cursor in Fig. 5B across two display monitors in an extended desktop mode shown in Fig. 4A-4B, and in a two independent desktops mode using the same input device shown in Fig. 5A-5B);
in response to detecting the first movement: ([0034-0035] user can drag (first movement) object either across two display monitors (Fig. 4B, 5B), or across a single monitor (Fig. 5A-5B), using the same input device for both monitors/systems);
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface object is a representation of content presented within an application window of a first application and the first input is detected while the second display generation component is in communication with the first computer system in a first mode: ([0033-0034] Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A-4B show a single desktop application (first application) can be expanded to display over two monitors in an extended desktop mode (first mode), where any graphical element such a pointer or any icon (first user interface object) shown on left side of the desktop application on Monitor 1, can be moved across in each monitor and from monitor 1 to monitor 2);
moving the cursor and the representation of content without moving the application window of the first application across the first display region provided by the first display generation component from the first location to a second location in the first display region in accordance with the first portion of the first movement; and ([0033-0034] Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A-4B show a single desktop application (first application) can be expanded to display over two monitors in an extended desktop mode, where any graphical element, such as icon shown in Monitor 1, can be dragged/moved by a pointer (Fig. 5B), from the left side of the desktop application on Monitor 1, across the display region on Monitor 1 (first portion of the first movement), and from Monitor 1 to Monitor 2);
moving the cursor and the representation of content without moving the application window of the first application across the second display region provided by the second display generation component in accordance with the second portion of the first movement; ([0033-0034] Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A-4B show a single desktop application can be expanded to display over two monitors in an extended desktop mode, where any graphical element such as icon shown on Monitor 1, can be moved across from Monitor 1 to Monitor 2, and further within Monitor 2 (second portion of the first movement));
[
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface object is an application window and the first input is detected while the second display generation component is in communication with the first computer system in the first mode: ([0033-0034] Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A-4B show a single desktop application can be expanded to display over two monitors in an extended desktop mode (first mode), where any graphical element such as an application window can be moved across in each monitor and from monitor 1 to monitor 2);
moving the cursor and the first user interface object across the first display region provided by the first display generation component from the first location to a second location in the first display region in accordance with the first portion of the first movement; and ([0033-0034] Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A-4B show a single desktop application can be expanded to display over two monitors in an extended desktop mode, where any graphical element such an application window can be moved across in monitor 1 (first portion of the first movement) and from monitor 1 to monitor 2, using a cursor/pointer (Fig. 5B));
moving the cursor and the first user interface object across the second display region provided by the second display generation component in accordance with the second portion of the first movement; and ([0033-0034] Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A-4B show a single desktop application can be expanded to display over two monitors in an extended desktop mode, where any graphical element such as an application window can be moved across from monitor 1 to monitor 2, and inside monitor 2 (second portion of the first movement));
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface object is an application window and the first input is detected while the second display generation component is in communication with the first computer system in the second mode, preventing movement of the first user interface object into the second display region provided by the second display generation component. ([0033, 0035] Fig. 5A-5B show two different desktops are shown separately in two different monitors, but are controlled by the same set of input devices in a second separate desktop mode (second mode), where when an application window in monitor 1 is moved toward the right edge of monitor 1, the application window simply moves off the display area of the monitor 1, and is prevented from moving into the monitor 2 display area).
Although Romm teaches all graphical elements such as cursor/windows can be moved across two displays in an extended desktop mode/first mode (Fig. 4A-4B [0033-0034]), and only mouse pointer can move across displays in a shared input of two separate systems mode/second mode (Fig. 5A-5B, [0035]), Romm does not explicitly teach moving a representation of content presented within an application window across the displays in the second mode from the display of a first system to the display of a second system.
Slavov teaches Huawei’s Harmony OS 2.0 offers three different modes - Mirror, Extend, and Collaborate, to allow MatePad tablet to connect seamlessly to a Windows PC and act as a second display (Extend Mode) or enable cross-platform drag and drop (Collaborate Mode) between Harmony OS and Windows (Page 5, middle):
…
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface object is a representation of content presented within an application window of a first application and the first input is detected while the second display generation component is in communication with the first computer system in a second mode different from the first mode: (page 5 middle: while MatePad tablet with Harmony OS is connected to a Windows PC via Collaborate Mode (second mode), images, documents, or files (first user interface object) can be dragged between the tablet screen and the PC screen; it’s obvious a file icon, an image, or document is a representation of content presented within an application window (file explorer, desktop, image viewer application, etc.));
moving (Page 5 middle: file or image or document can be dragged from a MatePad tablet screen (first display region) to a connected PC screen (or vice versa), where the selected object can be dragged/moved across in display of the tablet (first portion of the first movement), and from display of the tablet to the display of the PC);
moving the representation of content without moving the application window of the first application across the second display region provided by the second display generation component in accordance with the second portion of the first movement; (Page 5 middle: file or images or document can be dragged from a MatePad tablet screen to a connected PC screen (second display region), where the selected object can be dragged/moved across from display of the tablet to the display of the PC, and within the display of the PC (second portion of the first movement));
Slavov and Romm are analogous art because Slavov also teaches sharing input control across multiple devices with at least two different modes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Slavov and Romm before him/her, to modify the teachings of Romm to include the teachings of Slavov so that content such as files/images/documents can also be dragged/dropped and transferred between two systems. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would additionally enable contents/representation of contents other than pointer, such as files/images/documents to be shared between two devices seamlessly via the same input for the convenience of the user, in the setup where the two separate systems are sharing the same input devices.
Additionally, Romm-Slavov do not explicitly teach moving both the cursor and the representation of the content while the first and second computer system in connected in the second mode: “moving the cursor and the representation of content without moving the application window of the first application across the first display region provided by the first display generation component from the first location to a second location in the first display region in accordance with the first portion of the first movement”.
However, Lu teaches a cross device object drag method (abstract):
moving the cursor and the representation of content without moving the application window of the first application across the first display region provided by the first display generation component from the first location to a second location in the first display region in accordance with the first portion of the first movement ([0155] Fig. 6B shows an image 601 along with pointer 604 being dragged across the laptop display (first display region) toward the connected tablet (first portion of the first movement) within the desktop application window without moving the window; also see Fig. 9 and associated paragraphs for continued drag inside the tablet display);
Lu and Romm-Slavov are analogous art because Lu also teaches dragging object with shared input control across multiple devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Lu and Romm-Slavov before him/her, to modify the teachings of Romm-Slavov to include the teachings of Lu so that a cursor/pointer can be displayed along with selected object while the object is dragged two computer systems. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide visual feedback to users with the display of a pointer to alert user the current control position within the user interface, to improve user experiences with the user interface.
Per claim 2, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
moving the first user interface object or the representation of content across the second display region includes moving the first user interface object or the representation of content from a first location on the second display region to a second location on the second display region; and (Romm [0033-0034] Fig. 3B, Fig. 4A-4B: in extended desktop mode where a single desktop is spanned across two monitors as shown in Fig. 4A-4B, all graphical elements can be moved across two monitors freely, since it is a part of a single application data stream/operating environment; any window/icon can be moved from a first location to a second location in the second display region/Monitor 2 as part of moving/dragging the window/icon across two monitors/displays);
the method further includes detecting a second input via the first input device, the second input corresponding to a request to position the first user interface object at the second location, where the second location on the second display region is determined in accordance with a determination of a location of receiving the second input. (Romm [0033-0034] Fig. 3B, Fig. 4A-4B: in extended desktop mode where a single desktop is spanned across two monitors as shown in Fig. 4A-4B, all graphical elements can be controlled using the same input device in the second display region, more specifically after the UI element has been moved into the second display region/Monitor 2).
Per claim 3, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
when the first user interface object is a representation of content, maintaining display of the first user interface object while the representation of content is being moved across the first display region and the second display region. (Romm [0033, 0035] Fig. 5A-5B: the two monitors in the figures each represent an independent desktop from a separate application data stream, where the input devices are shared between the two desktops, and the cursor as a representation of desktop content can be freely moved from first display region across to the second display region to be used to control the second desktop environment; Chang [0102-0106] Fig. 11 shows the display of the content icon 40 as it is being moved across the displays of the two devices).
Per claim 4, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
when the first user interface object is an application window, maintaining display of the application window as an open application window while the first user interface object is being moved. (Romm [0033-0034] Fig. 4B shows when an application window is moved across the two monitors, it maintains display as an open application window in the extended desktop mode).
Per claim 7, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the first computer system is in communication with the second computer system via a wired connection. (Romm [0027] the communication of the distributed multihead system can be connected via USB, Fiber channel, Ethernet, etc.).
Per claim 8, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the first computer system is in communication with the second computer system via a wireless connection. (Romm [0027] the communication of the distributed multihead system can be connected via WIFI or Bluetooth).
Per claim 9, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the first computer system having the first display generation component is further in communication with a third computer system having a third display generation component that is different from the first display generation component and the second display generation component. (Romm [0039] a third computing device can be included in the multihead system, where it can be dynamically configured to share the same desktop with other two monitors in an extended desktop mode, or host a separate desktop on its own).
Per claim 10, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
while moving the first user interface object or the representation of content across the first display region provided by the first display generation component, in accordance with a determination that the first user interface object or the representation of content can be moved from the first display region onto the second display region, displaying a first visual indication. (Romm [0034-0035] Fig. 4B shows when an application window can be moved from a first display region/monitor 1 to a second display region/monitor 2, the window is shown straddling the monitors/two display regions).
Per claim 11, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 10, and further teach:
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface object cannot be moved from the first display region onto the second display region, displaying a second visual indication distinct from the first visual indication. (Romm [0034-0035] Fig. 5B: when an application window cannot be moved from a first display region/monitor 1 to a second display region/monitor 2, when the window moved to the right edge, it simply moves off screen without the second display region/monitor 2 showing the off screen part of the window from the first display region/monitor 1).
Per claim 14, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
moving the first user interface object or the representation of content across the second display region provided by the second display generation component, in accordance with the determination that the first input is detected while the second display generation component is in communication with the first computer system in the second mode, includes moving the first user interface object or the representation of content to a location on a native user interface of the second computer system. (Romm [0033, 0035] Fig. 5B shows the two monitors each displays an independent desktop while sharing the same input device(s), when cursor is moved from the first display region/Monitor 1 onto the second display region/Monitor 2, the cursor is moved across on the native user interface of the second desktop displayed on the second display region/Monitor 2).
Per claim 15, claim 15 is a system claim comprising a first display generation component (Romm [0020] Fig. 1, Video output controller 1), processors (Romm [0020] computing device with a CPU), and memory (Romm [0006, 0020] computing device storing software) that includes limitations substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 16, claim 16 is a non-transitory medium claim (Romm [0006, 0020] computing device storing software) that includes limitations substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 17, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the first mode corresponds to a mode in which the second computer system serves as an extended display device for the first computer system and the second mode corresponds to a mode in which the second computer system serves as an independent device that shares the first input device with the first computer system. ([0020, 0034-0035] Fig. 1 shows two computer devices that shares the same input devices; Fig. 4A-4B shows that the two computer systems can serve, in a first mode, a single extended desktop mode; Fig. 5A-5B shows the two devices serving, in a second mode, as two independent systems that shares the same input where the cursor can move across the two displays of the two independent systems).
Per claim 19, Romm-Slavov-Lu each all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
moving the cursor and the representation of content across the second display region provided by the second display generation component, in accordance with the determination that the first user interface object is a representation of content presented within an application window of the first application and that the first input is detected while the second display generation component is in communication with the first computer system in the second mode, includes moving the representation of content to a location within an application window of a second application, different from the first application, that is displayed in the second display region. (Lu [0155, 0173] Fig. 6B and Fig. 9: Fig. 9 shows an object with cursor being dragged onto and across the desktop application (second application) of a tablet (second display generation component), Fig. 6B shows the object and cursor being dragged from the desktop application (first application) of a laptop (first display generation component), where the laptop and the tablet are connected through a shared mode (second mode), where contents can be shared between the two devices).
Per claim 20, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
Wherein the representation of content that is presented within the application window and is moved in response to detecting the first movement is selected text. (Lu [0017] the object being dragged across two devices/terminals with displays may be a text).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Romm, in view of Slavov, Lu, and Ozaki et al. (US Pub 20110260997, cited in 892 dated 9/19/2023, hereinafter Ozaki).
Per claim 5, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not teach moving the object back to the first location if the object is prevented to be moved from the first display region onto the second display region. However, Ozaki teaches:
wherein preventing movement of the first user interface object into the second display region includes automatically moving the first user interface object across the first display region provided by the first display generation component from the second location back to the first location. (Abstract [0092] Fig. 13: Fig. 13 shows a flowchart of a method of dragging object across two displays; step S144 shows if after the object has been dragged to the edge of the first display, touch input is not present on the second display, the object can be moved back to the original position at S117).
Ozaki and Romm-Slavov-Lu are analogous art because Ozaki also teach dragging object across multiple displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Ozaki and Romm-Slavov-Lu before him/her, to modify the teachings of Romm-Slavov-Lu to include the teachings of Ozaki so that if the object is prevented from moving to the second display region, the object can be restored to its original position. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a small convenience to the user to not having to waste effort to return the user interface object back to its original location if it cannot be moved to the second display as the user has intended.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Romm, in view of Slavov, Lu, and Strode et al. (US Pub 20150143266, cited in 892 dated 9/19/2023, hereinafter Strode).
Per claim 6, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not teach pausing movement of the object at a second location when the object is prevented to be moved from the first display region onto the second display region. However, Strode teaches:
wherein preventing movement of the first user interface object into the second display region includes pausing the movement of the first user interface object at the second location. ([0019] when the ‘gate’ between two devices is closed, the user cannot move cursor past the edge of a display onto another display; the movement of the cursor is paused/stopped at the edge of the first/primary display).
Strode and Romm-Slavov-Lu are analogous art because Strode also teach sharing input control across multiple devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Strode and Romm-Slavov-Lu before him/her, to modify the teachings of Romm-Slavov-Lu to include the teachings of Strode so that it would stop the movement of the user interface object at the edge of the screen when it cannot be moved into the second display region. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide an additional visual indication to the users to provide feedback to the users that the object cannot cross the display border, further give the user time to open the ‘gate’ to move the object across onto the second display.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Romm, in view of Slavov, Lu, and Chang et al. (US Pub 20140317530, cited in 892 dated 9/19/2023, hereinafter Chang).
Per claim 12, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach a visual indication in the first display region indicating the first user interface object is capable of being moved into a second or a third display region.
However, Chang teaches:
in accordance with a determination that first criteria for moving the first user interface object onto the second display region provided by the second display generation component or a third display region provided by a third display generation component are met, while moving the first user interface object across the first display region in accordance with the first portion of the first movement, displaying a third visual indication in a first position of the first display region indicating that the first user interface object is capable of being moved onto the second display region or the third display region. ([0030-0032] Fig. 1 shows transfer area 141, 142, 143 indicating capability of shared input control with the electronic devices 200 on both sides, and cloud service device 300 on top; [0059-0062] Fig. 4 shows a flowchart of the operation of the first electronic device 100, and when a predetermined condition for the input control sharing function is satisfied at 405, which can be the formation of a predefined communication channel with the second device 200 to share an input control, the first device can proceed to transmit input signal to the second device 200; [0078-0081] Fig. 7 shows while the cursor is moved across the first display region when the input control sharing mode is activated, the first transfer area 141 is displayed to the side of the screen closest to the second device on the right edge/first position of the first display region, indicating the capability of moving the cursor onto the second display region in the input control sharing mode).
Chang and Romm-Slavov-Lu are analogous art because Chang also teaches sharing input control across multiple devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Chang and Romm-Slavov-Lu before him/her, to modify the teachings of Romm-Slavov-Lu to include the teachings of Chang so that a visual indicator for capability to move object across two displays can be displayed to the users. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a visual indication to the users for activation of the input control sharing mode to inform the users of their actions for controlling multiple devices.
Per claim 13, Romm-Slavov-Lu-Chang teach the all the limitations of claim 12, and further teach:
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface object has a location at a respective time during the first portion of the first movement that is spatially closer to the second display region provided by the second display generation component than to the third display region provided by a third display generation component, displaying the third visual indication in the first position of the first display region indicating that the first user interface object can be moved onto the second display region and forgoing displaying a fourth visual indication in a second position of the first display region indicating that the first user interface object can be moved onto the third display region. (Chang [0091] Fig. 9 shows the cursor is moved closer to the second device 200 than other devices shown in Fig. 1, where the file transfer area 241 is displayed on the right edge of the display closer to the second device/display region indicating transfer capability to the second device, and the transfer area 142 from Fig. 1 is not displayed; also [0078-0081] Fig. 7: transfer area 241 from first device and transfer area 242 from the second device can be mapped together so that when the mouse cursor enters area 141, the cursor is removed from the area 241 and shown in area 242; it’s obvious that when there is also other devices connected as shown in Fig. 1, the other transfer area 142, 143 will not show the indication of cursor disappearance).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Romm, in view of Slavov, Lu, and Shah et al. (US Pub 20210048933, from IDS, hereinafter Shah).
Per claim 18, Romm-Slavov-Lu teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach the first and second computer system are logged into a same user account. However, Shah teaches:
wherein, before said displaying, the first computer system and the second computer system are logged into a same user account. (abstract [0034] a method to drag and drop an object of a second device to a first device; Fig. 5 shows a flow chart of cross platform drag and drop functionality, where before displaying the mirrored second device UI on the first device, at step 502A, connection between the first and second device may be established based on the user being signed into the same user account on both devices).
Shah and Romm-Slavov-Lu are analogous art because Shah also teach transferring contents across multiple devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Shah and Romm-Slavov-Lu before him/her, to modify the teachings of Romm-Slavov-Lu to include the teachings of Shah so that connections between devices can also be established via shared user account. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide ensure a trusted relationship between the two devices that are about to share contents/data, and provide the user with an authorization process before connecting two devices together to share contents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patents & Publications
US 20150356045 A1
SOFFER; Aviv
Multi-host docking device, has selector for enabling user selection between first and second host computers, and arbiter connected to first and second device emulators for enabling clipboard and file transfer between computers
US 20170351396 A1
Passeri; Paolo et al.
Method for enabling automatic switchover of input device between host computers, involves receiving input signal from input device by first host computer, and operating appropriate software application on display of second host computer
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights