DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling on 02/24/2026.
Claims 62-64, 66, 73-75, and 77 have been cancelled. Claims 61, 65, 69, 70, 72, 76, and 78-80 have been amended. Claims 81-82 have been added. All present claims have been examined.
Previous rejection withdrawn as necessitated by the claim amendments.
This action is made Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 61, 65, 72 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20110047214), in view of Islam et al. (US 20170134393).
In regards to claims 61 and 72, Lee teaches a system, wherein the system comprises a first electronic device and a second electronic device, and wherein: the first electronic device comprises at least one first processor and at least one first memory, and the at least one first memory stores first programming instructions that, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to request capability information of the second electronic device (see para 29, 31, requesting device obtaining functions from a second device); the second electronic device comprises at least one second processor and at least one second memory, and the at least one second memory stores second programming instructions that, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to send the capability information to the first electronic device, wherein the capability information comprises one or more functions, and the one or more functions comprise a first function (see para 29, 31, 45, 54: obtaining functions from a second device functions that are sharable between. Having multiple functions); the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to:
detect a first operation of a user selecting the first content; in response to detecting the first operation of the user selecting the first content, display a function list based on a type of the first content, wherein the function list comprises a plurality of functions including the first function; detect a second operation of the user selecting the first function from the function list to process the selected first content (see para 36, 40, 45-47, 58, 60-61: the user selects the file to be played however since the device cannot be played on the device because of the type of content, the system shows a warning and automatically searches for playback devices within the network. On para 58, 60-61 discusses the instruction to play a moving picture file and the system because of the type of file cannot play the file, can either automatically provide a menu or it display a menu for selection of a search menu. When the search menu is displayed automatically, the user is provided with a list of devices that when selected by the user can function to share and display the content on that second device); send the first content and first request information to the second electronic device in response to detecting the second operation of the user selecting the first function from the function list, wherein the first request information is used to request the second electronic device to process the first content by using the first function (see para 40, 45-47, 54, 58, 60-61: sending media to second device and performing the function by the second device e.g. playback of content. Para 58:” Therefore, referring to FIG. 5A, when an instruction to play a moving picture file, which is not a type of file that may be played back, is input..” Para 60 : ”When the warning window 510 is displayed, referring now to FIG. 5B, the mobile phone 410 may automatically display the search window 530 either for searching for a device capable of transcoding.. “. Para 61: “The playback devices 420 are displayed on the information window 550 in the order closest to property information selected by a user in a menu for selecting device property information related to transcoding. The user selects one of at least one playback devices 420 displayed on the information windows 550.”); the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: process the first content based on the first request information by using the first function (see para 40, 46-47: sending media to second device and performing the function by the second device e.g. playback of content); and send a processing result of the first content to the first electronic device (see para 48 “processed result-transmitting unit 370 transmits result data acquired by performing a shared function in the shared function performing unit 350 and identification information of the first device 110 via the network 140. In this regard, when the result data is decoded data or encoded data, the data may be transmitted using a streaming method”); and the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, causes the first electronic device to prompt the user with the processing result (see para 55, 63 and FIG. 5E: providing a prompt to the user).
Lee doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first electronic device and the second electronic device are (1) logged in to by using a same account or (2) in a same family group.
Islam teaches wherein the first electronic device and the second electronic device are (1) logged in to by using a same account or (2) in a same family group (See S330 fig.3, ‘Display user interface for receiving input for information of another user with whom use authority with respect to service is to be shared; See fig.7, Sharing service having an authority as shown in ‘Input Credential Details’. Additionally see abstract: “A method of a second terminal for sharing a use authority of a service allowed by a first user of a first terminal is provided” and also at least para 99-100: “the user of the first terminal 600 may select the best friend group and may share a use authority so as to allow acquaintances included in the best friend group to use an account of the user in the SNS service”).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Islam in order to be able to share services or data between devices with the teachings of Lee. A person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that the system facilitates a sharing function to trusted devices.
Although Lee mentions sending and displaying content on the second device as provided above (see Lee, para 40, 45-47, 54: sending media to second device and performing the function by the second device e.g. playback of content), it doesn’t specifically teach display first content.
However, Lee does teach an instruction to play a file (see para 58: “Therefore, referring to FIG. 5A, when an instruction to play a moving picture file, which is not a type of file that may be played back, is input…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in order for the device to receive an input to play a file, a user would have selected a displayed content on a menu or interface. A person skilled in the art who would have known that by displaying content to a user facilitates user selection.
In regards to claims (65 and 76), Lee doesn’t specifically mention wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to send second content and second request information to the second electronic device in response to detecting an operation that the user selects the second content, and wherein the second request information is used to request the second electronic device to process the second content by using the first function.
However, Lee teaches all the steps to link with a second device and perform the functions using the second device as shown above on para 29, 31 40, 45-4 and 54 of the reference. Lee further mentions on para 49 “since functions may be shared via the network 140, if a function may not be performed by the first device 110, the first device 110 may utilize the function of the second device 120, which is connected via the network” and para 55 “Multimedia content with respect to which a user selected to perform a shared function is provided from the mobile phone 410 to the playback device 420 via the network 440” and para 71: “The second device may authorize the request though a corresponding shared function is currently being performed”.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Lee in order to be able to use the function of the second device multiple times when the first device is not capable of performing such function. A person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that the system facilitates a sharing function even when one is already being perform and by doing so enhances the system by enabling multiple sharing functions to be performed as needed by the user.
Claim(s) 67 and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Islam as applied to claim 61 and 72 above, and further in view of WANG SHUNPING (CN1361622A) – English translation and KAWANO SHINICHI (WO2015156011) – English translation.
In regards to claims (67 and 78), Lee doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first function is a text editing function, and the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: obtain content when detecting the first operation; display first text content corresponding to the (obtained) content; and send the first text content and the first request information to the second electronic device, wherein the first request information is used to request the second electronic device to perform text editing on the first text content; wherein the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: display the first text content in response to receiving the first text content and the first request information; display second text content in response to detecting an editing operation performed by the user on the first text content, wherein the second text content is text content obtained after the first text content is edited; and send the second text content to the first electronic device; and wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: replace the first text content with the second text content.
Wang teaches wherein the first function is a text editing function, and the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: obtain content when detecting the first operation; display first text content corresponding to the (obtained) content; and send the first text content and the first request information to the second electronic device, wherein the first request information is used to request the second electronic device to perform text editing on the first text content; wherein the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: display the first text content in response to receiving the first text content and the first request information; display second text content in response to detecting an editing operation performed by the user on the first text content, wherein the second text content is text content obtained after the first text content is edited; and send the second text content to the first electronic device; and wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: replace the first text content with the second text content (see at least para 4, 8-13, 21: the steps to obtain content from the first device and send it to a computer to be edited there by a software for document processing e.g. WORD. After the user edits the information it’s sent back to the first device and it’s updated on the device with the edited content).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Wang in order to be able to obtain the content and be sent the second device to be edited and after be sent back to the first device to the teachings of Lee. A person skilled in the art who would have been motivated since both inventions facilitate performing a function on content on a second device when the first device is not able or difficult, given that by doing so the system facilitates accomplishing a needed function when the first device is unable, and facilitating the process for the user.
Lee and Wang don’t specifically teach obtain audio content when detecting the first operation.
KAWANO teaches obtain audio content when detecting the first operation (see page 23, line 1005, teaches that text input can be received through voice and using voice to text the system receives voice input, the voice input converted to text is displayed on the display which confirms the inputted content through voice).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by KAWANO in order to be able to obtain the content as voice input and combine it with teachings of Lee as modified by Wang. A person skilled in the art who would have been motivated to combine these teachings since it further facilitates receiving content input by allowing a user to speak the desired text instead of having to type the text.
Claim(s) 68 and 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Islam, WANG and KAWANO as applied to claims 67 and 78 above, and further in view of Brand et al. (US 20060129976).
In regards to claims (68 and 81), although Lee as modified by Wang teach text editing and sending edited text back to first device as shown on claim 67 above, the combination fails to specifically teach wherein the editing operation comprises a format modification operation on the first text content; and; wherein the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to send format information of the second text content to the first electronic device, wherein the format information of the second text content comprises one or more of a font color, a font size, a font background color, a font tilt, or a font underline of the second text content, and a carriage return operation of the second text content.
Brand teaches wherein the editing operation comprises a format modification operation on the first text content; and wherein the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to send format information of the second text content to the first electronic device, wherein the format information of the second text content comprises one or more of a font color, a font size, a font background color, a font tilt, or a font underline of the second text content, and a carriage return operation of the second text content (see para 53 teaches text editing interface which provides text formatting tools including font size, font color, font style (e.g., italic, bold, underlined)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Brand and combine it with teachings of Lee as modified by Wang in order to edit text format. A person skilled in the art who would have been motivated to combine these teachings since it enhances text editing interface on the second device and facilitates modification of the text in a way the user wants.
Claim(s) 69 and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Islam as applied to claim 61 and 72 above, and further in view of Issaev (US 20160110348).
In regards to claims (69 and 79), Lee teaches using a second device for a function as taught above, but doesn’t specifically teach , wherein the first content comprises text content, the first function is a translation function, and the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: send the text content and the first request information to the second electronic device, wherein the first request information is used to request the second electronic device to translate the text content by using the translation function; wherein the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: translate the text content by using the translation function; and send a translation result to the first electronic device; and wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to prompt the user with the translation result.
Issaev teaches wherein the first content comprises text content, the first function is a translation function, and the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: send the text content and the first request information to the second electronic device when detecting the first operation, wherein the first request information is used to request the second electronic device to translate the text content by using the translation function; wherein the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: translate the text content by using the translation function; and send a translation result to the first electronic device; and wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to prompt the user with the translation result (see abstract, FIG. 2(b) and at least para 27: a user client (22) needs a translation function for a text, the user on the device(22) sends the text message to a translation server (second device), the server translates the text message and sends the translation back to the user device (22)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Lee and combine it with Issaev in order to be able to request a translation function from a server. A person skilled in the art who would have been motivated to combine these teachings since by doing so, it would facilitate requesting a translation of a text when the user’s device cannot translate a text.
Claim(s) 70 and 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Islam as applied to claim 61 and 72 above, and further in view of LI LIANG et al. (CN106202308) – English translation
In regards to claims (70 and 80), Lee teaches using a second device for a function as taught above, but doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first content comprises image information, the first function is an object recognition function, and the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: send the image information and the first request information to the second electronic device, wherein the first request information is used to request the second electronic device to recognize an object in the image information by using the object recognition function; wherein the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: recognize the object in the image information by using the object recognition function; and send an object recognition result to the first electronic device; and wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to prompt the user with the object recognition result.
Li teaches wherein the first content comprises image information, the first function is an object recognition function, and the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: send the image information and the first request information to the second electronic device when detecting the first operation, wherein the first request information is used to request the second electronic device to recognize an object in the image information by using the object recognition function; wherein the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: recognize the object in the image information by using the object recognition function; and send an object recognition result to the first electronic device; and wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to prompt the user with the object recognition result (See para 9-16, 37, 41-57: teaches the process and steps to send image data for a second device to process the image with recognition function, recognize and process. When the image is recognized the system send back results to the first device based on the recognition which provides the user of the first device visual feedback e.g. if the user of second device has permission or not).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Li and combine it with Lee in order to process the image with recognition function and provide it to user. A person skilled in the art who would have been motivated to combine these teachings since by doing so, it would facilitate requesting content processing (image recognition) when the user’s device cannot accomplish this function, thus providing the function to a user when needed.
Claim(s) 71and 82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Islam as applied to claims 61 and 72 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 20220067992).
In regards to claims (71, 82), Lee teaches using a second device for a function as taught above, but doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first content comprises first image information, the first function is a retouching function, and first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: display one or more image parameters when detecting the first operation, wherein the one or more image parameters comprise a first image parameter; detect an operation that the user adjusts the first image parameter to a first value; and send the first image information and the first request information to the second electronic device, wherein the first request information is used to request the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: adjust the first image parameter of the first image information to the first value by using the retouching function; wherein the second electronic device is configured to: adjust the first image parameter of the first image information to the first value by using the retouching function to obtain second image information; and send the second image information to the first electronic device; and wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to replace the first image information with the second image information.
Xu teaches wherein the first content comprises first image information, the first function is a retouching function, and first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to: display one or more image parameters when detecting the first operation, wherein the one or more image parameters comprise a first image parameter; detect an operation that the user adjusts the first image parameter to a first value; and send the first image information and the first request information to the second electronic device, wherein the first request information is used to request the second programming instructions, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the second electronic device to: adjust the first image parameter of the first image information to the first value by using the retouching function; wherein the second electronic device is configured to: adjust the first image parameter of the first image information to the first value by using the retouching function to obtain second image information; and send the second image information to the first electronic device; and wherein the first programming instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the first electronic device to replace the first image information with the second image information (see abstract, also FIG. 6-8 and at least para 25-26, 76-77: teaches image editing where a user request editing from an image, the image and the request contains data associated to parameters to be edited on the image. Server system edits the image based on the received data and original image and sends the updated image back to the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Lee and combine it with Xu in order to be able to request an image editing from an image editing computer/server. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings since by doing so, it would facilitate requesting an image editing when the user’s device cannot complete the request locally or when it would have taken longer to complete locally with the limited capabilities of the user’s device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants’ amendments further clarify the selection steps and providing menus based on the selection and thus changing the scope of the claim. However, a review of the prior art shows that Lee teaches the amended claim language.
Applicant argues that Lee fails to teach "in response to detecting the first operation of the user selecting the first content, display[ing] a function list based on a type of the first content". Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As mentioned by applicant regarding para 40, Lee teaches providing menu to a user. “However, the first device 110 may modify configuration of a User Interface (UI) to execute a shared function of the second device 120. The first device 110 may display a selection menu for user input on the output unit 270. Other than a selection menu for existing functions, the output unit 270 may further display a new selection menu for selecting the second device 120 or a shared function of the second device 120. The output unit 270 may further display a selection menu for indicating a type of result data to be acquired by performing a shared function in the second device 120. When the first device 110 includes a touch screen, a user may manipulate a UI by touching the touch screen. When the first device 110 includes buttons, the user may manipulate the UI by manipulating the buttons.”
The menu provided include functions for second device or a shared function. However, the menu is in response to a user selecting to play a file that is unable to be played by the device. Because of the type of content, the system provides the user with a menu. As shown above in the rejection para 58 to 61 further explain the two paths provided by Lee. Para 58:” Therefore, referring to FIG. 5A, when an instruction to play a moving picture file, which is not a type of file that may be played back, is input..” Para 60 : ”When the warning window 510 is displayed, referring now to FIG. 5B, the mobile phone 410 may automatically display the search window 530 either for searching for a device capable of transcoding.. “. Para 61: “The playback devices 420 are displayed on the information window 550 in the order closest to property information selected by a user in a menu for selecting device property information related to transcoding. The user selects one of at least one playback devices 420 displayed on the information windows 550.” The device receives the instruction to play a moving picture file and the system because of the type of file cannot play the file, can either automatically provide a menu or it display a menu for selection of a search menu. When the search menu is displayed automatically, the user is provided with a list of devices that when selected by the user can function to share and display the content on that second device. As such the claim language as provided is taught by Lee.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (US 20210204337) – teaches sharing functions between device. The devices are logged with the same account
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights