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 .
Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 14, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on October 14, 2025 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 14 are now amended.
Claims 2, 5–7, 13, and 15–20 are now canceled.
New claim 22 is now added.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8–12, 14, 21, and 22 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner is persuaded that the amendments resolve the informalities raised in the previous Office Action, and therefore, the objections to the specification and to claims 12 and 14 are hereby withdrawn.
The Examiner is also persuaded that the amendment to claim 1 narrows the scope of claim 1 and its dependent claims such that they are no longer obvious over Zeung, Morris, or Butner. Claim 1 now essentially requires a touch screen with two separate components—one for displaying, the other for sensing the touch inputs—and routes the
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that “Claim 11 recites similar limitations to those discussed with respect to Claim 1 above and is not obvious for at least the same reasons.” (See Response 13). Claims 1 and 11 are directed to two different systems, concern two different inventive concepts, and were rejected over different combinations of prior art. Unlike claim 1, the system of claim 11 does not require the input device or any of the connected computing devices to be elements of the claim—the system covers computer systems that are separate from both of those required elements of claim 1. Accordingly, the Applicant’s comments concerning claim 11 are not persuasive of error.
In addition, the amendments raise new issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, which are set forth herein. Therefore, since all of the claims stand rejected, the Applicant’s request for a notice of allowance is respectfully denied.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Paragraph 66, line 2, the term “first comporting device” appears to be erroneous.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 21, and 22
Upon reconsideration of the claims and the specification, particularly in light of the Applicant’s remarks on pages 11–12 of the present Response, it is now clear that the January 8, 2025 amendment to claim 1 contained new matter, and that claim 1 continues to recite this new matter. The October 14, 2025 amendment to claim 1 exacerbates the new matter problem, and therefore, the totality of the new matter in claim 1 will be discussed together, below.
The specification discloses a display device “having” its own input device. See, e.g., devices 212–216 in FIG. 2 and originally filed claim 1.
The specification also discloses an overarching system 100 with an input device 310 that is separate from the display device 110, where the separate input device 310 is configured to provide inputs “directly” to a connected computing device (112 or 114). (See, e.g., FIG. 4 and Spec. ¶ 69
However, the specification does not disclose a display device 110 “having” its own input device 310, wherein the input device “had by” the display device also “directly” provides its touch inputs to a connected computing device 112 or 114, instead of providing those inputs to the display device that “has” the input device.
Instead, as shown in FIG. 4, “input device 310”—which again, is not an element of the display device 110—is the only device external to the one or more connected computing devices 112, 114 that is also capable of “directly” providing touch inputs to the connected computer device(s). As the specification explains, the arrow in FIG. 4 connecting display device 110 to connected computing device 114 is intentionally drawn through the input device 310 because “the system is configured to transfer data related to the input (e.g., the input location) from the first computing device 110 (e.g., the one or more first computing device processors 202) to the particular connected computing device 114 via the one or more input devices 310.” (Spec. ¶ 69).
The October 14 amendment to claim 1 exacerbates the new matter problem, because the word “having” now requires the display device to include both “an interactive touch screen display device” and “a display screen.” The specification does not disclose a display device with two displays and a separate “touch screen display input.” To the contrary, paragraph 7 clarifies that the term “interactive touch screen display device” is merely a synonym for the claimed “display device.”
Claim 1 therefore recites new matter. The Examiner recommends removing the new matter as follows:
1. An interactive display system comprising:
an input device comprising an interactive touch screen display input;
a display device having at least one display processor
one or more connected computing devices operatively connected to the [[display]] input device,
Please note that the above suggestion is solely recommended for new matter purposes, and may not overcome any other rejection, including rejections over prior art.
Claims 10, 21, and 22 incorporate the entire text of claim 1 by reference, including its new matter, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 12 and 14
The Written Description does not disclose what claim 12 requires, namely, a system that consumes the second touch input without transmitting the second touch input to the connected computing device.
As a reminder, claim 12 incorporates all of the limitations from parent claim 11 by reference, and in parent claim 11, the first portion of the screen corresponds to the interactive touch screen display device, while the second portion of the screen corresponds to the connected computing device. Therefore, claim 12 requires a second touch input that starts in the connected computing device’s portion of the screen, yet, for some reason, doesn’t send the second touch input to the connected computing device.
Based on a careful read of claim 12, it appears the Applicant may have unintentionally added the new matter while using a find/replace function to replace too many instances of “first” in claim 12 with “second” beyond what would have been necessary to update the newly added second “receiving” step. Nevertheless, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), because the Written Description does not disclose a system that routes touch inputs to the wrong destination device.
Claim 14 incorporates the new matter of its parent claim 12 by reference, and therefore, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for reciting the same new matter as its parent claim.
The Applicant is advised that the lack of a prior art rejection for claims 12 and 14 is solely because the prior art does not disclose the new matter recited in those claims. Removing the new matter, without providing any other amendments, will change the scope of claims 12 and 14 in a way that necessitates a new ground of rejection involving a combination of Guest and Zeung that is similar to the obviousness rejection of claim 17 presented in the April 14, 2025 Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9
Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 lack antecedent basis for the system of claim 2, because claim 2 is now cancelled. (Claim 9 depends from claim 8, but incorporates claim 8’s indefinite language by reference).
When addressing this rejection, the Applicant is reminded that claim 1 is currently rejected for new matter, and therefore, an amendment updating claims 3, 4, and 8 to depend from claim 1, without a corresponding amendment removing the new matter from claim 1, will necessitate a new ground of rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 for their incorporation of said new matter by reference.
Claims 11, 12, and 14
Claim 11 recites the following indefinite claim language:
… receiving, via an input device for the interactive touch screen display device, all initial input data received via the input device, the all initial input data comprising:
initial input data for each initial contact on the interactive touch screen display device, the initial contact including a first contact in a series of continuous contacts until the contact is released and
a first touch input at a first location on the interactive touch screen display device;
The above language is indefinite for at least five reasons.
(1) The “first touch input” appears to describe the same thing that the newly added “initial contact” and/or “first contact in a series of continuous contacts.” Consequently, it is unclear whether the “first contact” and the “first touch input” are supposed to be two copies of data that describe the same event, two claim recitations of the same piece of data, or two different pieces of data describing two entirely different events. “[W]here a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” MPEP § 2173.05(o). Further, regardless of whether claim 11 recites the same element twice,
(2) It is also unclear whether the “initial contact” includes (i) both the “first contact” and the subsequent “series of continuous contacts,” or if instead, (ii) the “initial contact” limited to the first member of a series of continuous contacts, wherein the rest of the continuous contacts are excluded from the scope of “initial contact.”
Interpretation (ii) is reasonable because the word “initial” aligns with the “first” contact being the first in a series. But interpretation (i) is also reasonable, because the word “each” in the phrase “each initial contact” modifies the scope of “initial contact” to allow for more than one contact input to be part of the “initial contact,” and the claim language says that the initial contact “includ[es]” the first contact (meaning the number of contacts belonging to the “initial contact” is open-ended).
(3) If the answer to (1) is interpretation (i), then it is also unclear whether the “initial input data” further comprises data describing the release of the contact subsequent to the series of continuous contacts. If not, does the “all initial input data” at least comprise data describing the release of the contact subsequent to the series of continuous contacts? Or is no data for this release of contact ever received?
(4) If the answer to (1) is interpretation (ii), then it is also unclear whether the rest of the continuous contacts are part of the “initial input data.” In other words, under interpretation (ii), would the “initial input data” at least comprise a description for the first contact of the series together with a separate description of the rest of the contacts in the series?
(5) If the answer to (1) in interpretation (ii), but the answer to (2) is no, then it is also unclear whether the remaining “series of continuous contacts” is at least an element of the “all initial input data.” In other words, does the “all initial input data” still comprise a description for the “initial input data” together with a separate description of the rest of the contacts in the series?
If the Applicant is trying to claim the concept in paragraph 76 of the disclosure, where the system “perform[s] destination determination only for an initial input, without making such a determination for the continuous inputs (e.g., finger swipe) that extend from the initial contact,” it is recommended the Applicant use language that more closely tracks with the disclosure of this feature. For example:
receiving, via an input device for the interactive touch screen display device,
a first touch input at a first location on the interactive touch screen display device;
receiving, via the input device for the interactive touch screen display device, a series of continuous touch inputs extending from the first touch input;
determining, by the interactive touch screen display device , that the destination for both the first touch input and the entire series of continuous touch inputs is the connected computing device, based on1 the first location coinciding with the second portion; and
and the entire series of continuous touch inputs directly to the connected computing device for processing at the connected computing device.
Please note that the above suggestion is solely recommended for definiteness purposes, and may not overcome any other rejection, including rejections over prior art.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to “contain a reference to a claim previously set forth,” since their parent claim 2 is now cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0220242 A1 (“Guest”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0376131 A1 (“Zeung”).
Claim 11
Guest teaches:
A system comprising:
“FIG. 2 shows the components of a remote control system comprising a first computer device (local device) 10 connected via a network connection 24 to a second computer device (remote device) 30.” Guest ¶ 47.
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; and a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein, the processing device is configured to execute the instructions and thereby perform operations comprising:
“The local desktop 10 comprises a processor 12,” and “VNC viewer application 14 is running on the local device processor 12 to receive the image of the display via the networking subsystem 22 and output it on the local display subsystem 20; thus the local device may be termed a VNC viewer.” Guest ¶ 47. Processor 12 may “run” the software by executing instructions stored on a memory. See Guest ¶ 39.
simultaneously displaying, on an interactive touch screen display device: first content from at least the interactive touch screen display device on a first portion of the interactive touch screen display device; and second content from a connected computing device operatively coupled to the interactive touch screen display device on a second portion of the interactive touch screen display device;
FIGS. 1, 3b, and 4 each illustrate a screenshot of a local desktop running software (“VNC viewer”), where “[a] view of the display from the second computer device (remote desktop running VNC server) is shown as a window within the full display for the first computer device. Such a window may be termed a VNC Viewer window. Thus the VNC viewer is being used in ‘windowed’ mode which is desirable because it allows the user to work with other local desktop windows without handling the VNC Viewer window any differently.” Guest ¶ 5.
receiving, via an input device for the interactive touch screen display device, all initial input data received via the input device,
“Said first computing device may comprise an operating system which tracks the location of the pointer on the display. The operating system may provide regular updates to the processor regarding the location of the pointer on the display.” Guest ¶ 32. Notably, “the display may be touch sensitive and the pointer may be a user touch on the screen.” Guest ¶ 29 (emphasis added).
the all initial input data comprising:
initial input data for each initial contact on the interactive touch screen display device, the initial contact including a first contact in a series of continuous contacts until the contact is released; and
Reference is now made to the algorithm in shown in FIG. 5, which handles a series of inputs. This includes an initial input discovered during the first step S502, “by querying the cursor position via a call to the operating system.” Guest ¶ 57. This initial input may be the starting location of a complete cursor movement, e.g., the movement described in step S506.
a first touch input at a first location on the interactive touch screen display device;
“As shown at step S506, a message has been received from the operating system that the ‘cursor moved to (X,Y) (local co-ordinates)’ where (X,Y) specify the final location of the cursor.” Guest ¶ 57.
determining, by the interactive touch screen display device based at least in part on the first location, that the first touch input coincides with the second portion of the interactive touch screen display device; and
“The system then checks to see whether the co-ordinates (X,Y) lie within the VNC Viewer window, i.e. within the remote desktop view, at step S508.” Guest ¶ 57.
in response to determining that the first touch input coincides with the second portion of the interactive touch screen display device, causing the interactive touch screen display device to transmit an instruction touch input directly to the connected computing device for processing at the connected computing device.
“The remote cursor (i.e. cursor on the remote desktop) starts aligned with the local cursor (i.e. cursor on the local desktop) at A.” Guest ¶ 6. Input events within the window are sent to the second computer device so as to control the second computer device. Guest ¶ 2.
Guest does not appear to explicitly disclose the input device directly transmitting the input data to the connected computing device, and therefore, does not disclose transmitting “an instruction to the input device to transmit all input data” to the connected computing device.
Zeung, however, teaches:
A system comprising:
Reference is made to FIGS. 1 and 4, which illustrate two different functions of the same wireless computing system. Note that FIGS. 1 and 4 respectively prefix each component of the system with a “1” or a “4” corresponding to the figure number, and therefore, like parts will be discussed interchangeably (for example, dongle 14 corresponds to dongle 44, first host computer 11 corresponds to first host computer 41, second host computer 12 corresponds to second host computer 42, etc.). See Zeung ¶ 75 (explaining the embodiments of FIGS. 1 and 4 “are combinable to form another embodiment”).
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; and a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein, the processing device is configured to execute the instructions and thereby perform operations comprising:
“It is appreciated that the first host computer and the second host computer respectively include a processor (e.g., a CPU or MCU) to run the respective operation system and application software.” Zeung ¶ 131.
simultaneously displaying, on an interactive touch screen display device: first content from at least the interactive touch screen display device on a first portion of the interactive touch screen display device;
As shown in FIG. 4, wireless communication system 400 is configured to display, on a first host computer 41, the contents of “APP1.” See Zeung FIG. 4 and ¶ 69.
and second content from a connected computing device operatively coupled to the interactive touch screen display device on a second portion of the interactive touch screen display device;
At the same time, “wireless communication system 400 of this embodiment is adapted to perform [] screen mirroring to project the smartphone 42 onto a first screen 41sc of the first host computer 41,” within a particular region of the screen. Zeung ¶¶ 68 and 69 and FIG. 4.
receiving, via an input device for the interactive touch screen display device . . . a first location on the interactive touch screen display device;
The first host computer 11, 41 initially receives signals from a dongle 14, 44 that represent input data, such as the movement of a cursor position. Zeung ¶ 70.
determining, by the interactive touch screen display device based at least in part on the first location, that the location coincides with the second portion of the interactive touch screen display device;
Next, the first host computer 41 “detect[s] a cursor 41crs entering a mirroring range (i.e. a region showing the smartphone 42) of the smartphone 42 in the first screen 41sc,” per the mouse input signals that the dongle 44 provides to the first host computer 41. Zeung ¶ 69.
and in response to determining that the first location coincides with the second portion of the interactive touch screen display device, causing the interactive touch screen display device to transmit an instruction to the input device to transmit all input data beginning at the contact and continuing until a release of the contact directly to the connected computing device for processing at the connected computing device.
“In addition, after the cursor 41crs enters the mirroring range of the smartphone 42 on the first screen 41sc and when the APP1 detects the first event signal is an object dragging (e.g., using the cursor 41crs selecting an icon of the smartphone 42 and moving the mouse device 42 in order to move the icon within the mirroring range), the APP1 sends a switch command to the dongle 44 to cause the dongle 44 to directly transfer a dragging signal associated with the object dragging to the smartphone 42 without passing the notebook computer 41.” Zeung ¶ 72.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Guest’s VNC software with Zeung’s technique of instructing a separate input device to directly transmit all of its input data to a remote computing device, rather than using the electronic device to forward inputs received from the input device. One would have been motivated to directly send inputs to the remote computing device because “[c]ompared with the conventional method in which the dongle 44 sends the dragging signal to the APP1 at first and then sends the dragging signal to the smartphone 42 (i.e. the dongle 44 sending the dragging signal sequentially to the APP1 and the smartphone 42), the present disclosure can effectively ease latency in dragging operation and improve the user experience.” Zeung ¶ 73.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm 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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
1 The Applicant is reminded that the “based at least in part” language opens the door to prior art that discloses the conventional method of repeatedly determining the destination for each subsequent touch input in the series of continuous touch inputs, i.e., the method that paragraph 76 seeks to avoid.