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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
At page 9 of the Office Action, the rejection alleges that Guest teaches an application GUI to be shared that is rendered according to executed instructions. Application specific meta data is used for recreation of the application on the receiving user equipment. Application specific meta data is computer-readable and controls the execution of the recreation of the application. Recreation of the application may be performed in a different application (including versions) determined to be compatible. However, Applicant respectfully assert that while application specific meta data may affect the execution of an application, meta data itself cannot reasonably be considered to be computer-readable instructions for reproducing a sequence of application events captured within the capture portion on a remote computer system because meta data is a form of data, not instructions
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Guest at least at Fig. 13 shows the recreation of chat events on the remote computer (Fig. 13 with ¶0123-¶0127). For example, each of the messages represents an event within the application, and the Deep link within the metadata 1325 is the set of instructions used to recreate those events. The Examiner notes that Sun also discloses recreation of Application events within a capture area (Sun, Fig. 3C-3E, 3I-3K, Fig. 11 with ¶0021, ¶0060, ¶0148-¶0153, ¶0218).
Applicant argues that:
At the cited portions of Sun, while Sun may mention that a shortcut can be saved on an electronic device (e.g., a mobile phone) that includes a series of recorded actions taken via the user interface of the electronic device, Sun is nevertheless entirely silent regarding encapsulating an object in system memory comprising computer-readable instructions for reproducing a sequence of application events captured within the capture portion on a remote computer system at a later time period, as claimed.
Moreover, Sun fails to mention anything with respect to reproducing a sequence of application events captured within the capture portion on a remote computer system at a later time period, as claimed in amended Claim 1. At most, Sun mentions performing the saved shortcut on the same device that the was used to record and save the shortcut.
The examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Sun discloses using the recorded operation sequence at another computer (Sun, ¶0021). Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Guest shows recreation of application events at a remote device.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 15/466,551, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for claims 1-5, 7-23 of this application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/347459, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for claims 1-5, 7-23 of this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “user input device” in claim 8, “input device” in claim 11, and “cursor directing device” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Shelton (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0339941), referred to as Shelton herein [previously presented].
Milligan et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0221076), referred to as Milligan herein [previously presented].
Guest (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0129657), referred to as Guest herein [previously presented].
Aymeloglu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0070842), referred to as Aymeloglu herein [previously presented].
ET Mantra (“Record Selected Area of Computer Screen using Flashback Express | Screencasting, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEZWJMIuo3g), referred to as ET Mantra herein [previously presented].
Sun et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0418630), referred to as Sun herein [previously presented].
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 10-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest in view of Sun.
Regarding claim 1, Guest discloses a method of encapsulating an on-screen graphical user interface, said method comprising (Guest, Abstract – capturing a screenshot of displayed applications and transfer the screenshot and metadata to additional user equipment. See also ¶0056. ¶0032 – computers are examples of UEs. Fig. 9 with ¶0094-¶0098 – computers sharing screenshot+ files to recreate a session from one UE on a separate UE):
invoking an operating system (OS) system call on a computer system to begin a screen capture of information displayed on a display screen of the computer system
receiving a user input defining a geometric area of the on-screen graphical user interface, wherein the geometric area defines a capture portion of the on-screen graphical user interface to be encapsulated (Guest, Fig. 5 with ¶0056 and ¶0150 – screenshot captures some or all of the display screen information. ¶0067 – user defines a particular portion of the screen to capture);
ending the screen capture
wherein further the object comprises computer-readable instructions for reproducing a sequence of application events captured within the capture portion on a remote computer system at a later time period t2 (Guest, Figs. 4 and 6 with ¶0003, ¶0038, ¶0052-¶0055, ¶0078-¶0079, ¶0085, ¶0098, ¶0110 – application GUI to be shared is rendered according to executed instructions. Application specific metadata is used for recreation of the application on the receiving user equipment. Application specific metadata is computer-readable and controls the execution of the recreation of the application. Recreation of the application may be performed in a different application (including versions) determined to be compatible. Fig. 13 with ¶0123-¶0127 – sequence of chat history events is captured and recreated. See also Figs. 12-13 with at least ¶0112. Fig. 8 with ¶0062 – information provided by the operating system).
However, Guest appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses recreating application an interface (Sun, Abstract with Fig. 3C-3E and 3I-3K with ¶0148-¶0153), including
begin a screen capture of information displayed on a display screen of the computer system for a time period, ending the screen capture after the time period, and computer-readable instructions for reproducing a sequence of application events captured within the capture portion on a remote computer system or within a second application program of said computer system at a later time period (Sun, Fig. 3C-3E, 3I-3K, Fig. 11 with ¶0021, ¶0060, ¶0148-¶0153, ¶0218 – capturing a sequence of application events during a time period in the form of a shortcut. The events are recreated at a later time when the shortcut is selected. See also Figs. 6A-6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the screenshots of Guest to include a shortcut sequence based on the teachings of Sun. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate sharing or transferring shortcut instructions, which simplify operations for the user (Sun, ¶0004).
Regarding claim 3, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses further comprising: packaging the object in the system memory, wherein the object is operable to reproduce the capture portion of the on-screen graphical user interface of the first application program within a different on-screen graphical user interface of the computer system (Guest, Fig. 9 with ¶0098 – metadata instructions for loading the session state include an application class, a specific application, a specific application version number, different instructions for rendering the application state for different versions of application. Figs. 10-12 and ¶0101-¶0122 – URL for content, page view position, zoom state, specific address viewed. ¶0080 and ¶0088 – combination of metadata and screenshot is stored as a “screenshot+” among a set. Screenshot+ can be a single file or multiple associated files).
Regarding claim 4, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses further comprising packaging the object into a file on a local file system of the computer system and wherein the object further comprises: data; images; definition metadata of on-screen elements; positional metadata of on-screen elements; and metadata of functionality of on-screen graphical user interface elements (Guest, Fig. 9 with ¶0096, ¶0098 – Screenshot+ image data. Metadata instructions for loading the session state include an application class, a specific application, a specific application version number, different instructions for rendering the application state for different versions of application. Figs. 10-12 and ¶0100-¶0122 – URL for content, page view position, zoom state, specific address viewed, and time index for playback functionality. ¶0080 and ¶0088 – combination of metadata and screenshot is stored as a “screenshot+” among a set. Screenshot+ can be a single file or multiple associated files).
Regarding claim 5, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses transferring the file from the local file system to a remote computer system (Guest, Abstract – capturing a screenshot of displayed applications and transfer the screenshot and metadata to additional user equipment. ¶0032 – computers are examples of UEs. Fig. 9 with ¶0094-¶0098 – computers sharing screenshot+ files to recreate a session from one UE on a separate UE);
and reproducing the sequence of application events of the first application program on an on-screen display of the remote computer system (Guest, Fig. 14 with ¶0129-¶0133 – screenshot includes multiple applications for sharing with external devices. Multiple identified applications within the screenshot are shared via image and metadata. Applications are loaded on the remote devices. At least ¶0098 – creating some or all of the characteristics of the session state from the screenshot+ including loading the corresponding application on the mobile device for use. See also Figs. 10-13. See also Table 1. Sun, Fig. 3C-3E and 3I-3K with ¶0060, ¶0148-¶0153 – capturing a sequence of application events during a time period in the form of a shortcut. The events are recreated at a later time when the shortcut is selected. See also Figs. 6A-6B).
Regarding claim 7, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein said object is an OS object and wherein further the information associated with the on-screen graphical user interface comprises: definition metadata of on-screen elements; positional metadata of on-screen elements; metadata of functionality of on-screen graphical user interface elements: and an identification of said first application program (Guest, Fig. 9 with ¶0096, ¶0098 – Screenshot+ image data. Metadata instructions for loading the session state include an application class, a specific application, a specific application version number, different instructions for rendering the application state for different versions of application. Figs. 10-12 and ¶0100-¶0122 – URL for content, page view position, zoom state, specific address viewed, and time index for playback functionality. ¶0080 and ¶0088 – combination of metadata and screenshot is stored as a “screenshot+” among a set. Screenshot+ can be a single file or multiple associated files).
Regarding claim 10, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the object further comprises a recording of all events performed by applications within the geometric area to be encapsulated (Sun, Figs. 6A-6C with ¶0169-¶0170 – user operations and application events during the time period are recorded and identified).
Regarding claim 11, Guest discloses a method of defining and encapsulating an on-screen graphical user interface for reproduction thereof on a remote computer system, said method comprising (Guest, Abstract – capturing a screenshot of displayed applications and transfer the screenshot and metadata to additional user equipment. See also ¶0056. ¶0032 – computers are examples of UEs. Fig. 9 with ¶0094-¶0098 – computers sharing screenshot+ files to recreate a session from one UE on a separate UE):
initiating a screen capture by invoking an OS system call on a first computer system during a capture
defining a geometric area of the on-screen graphical user interface using an input device, said geometric area being a capture area and wherein said on-screen graphical user interface is related to a plurality of application programs executing during the capture
encapsulating said capture area to create a software (SW) object for the geometric area of the on-screen graphical user interface, wherein the SW object comprises a first sub-object comprising information for reproducing an on-screen graphical user interface of a first application program and a second sub-object comprising information for reproducing an on-screen graphical user interface of a second application program rendered during the capture
and wherein at least part of the on-screen graphical user interface of the first application program and at least part of the on-screen graphical user interface of the second application program are displayed within the geometric area of the on-screen graphical user interface (Guest, Figs. 13-14 with ¶0123-¶0133 - screenshot includes multiple applications for sharing with external devices. Multiple identified applications within the screenshot are shared via image and metadata. ¶0150 – application is within the user-defined area);
and at the end of the capture computer system at a subsequent time (Guest, Figs. 4 and 6 with ¶0003, ¶0038, ¶0052-¶0055, ¶0078-¶0079, ¶0085, ¶0098, ¶0110 – application GUI to be shared is rendered according to executed instructions. Application specific metadata is used for recreation of the application on the receiving user equipment. Application specific metadata is computer-readable and controls the execution of the recreation of the application. Recreation of the application may be performed in a different application (including versions) determined to be compatible. Fig. 13 with ¶0123-¶0127 – sequence of chat history events is captured and recreated. See also Figs. 12-13 with at least ¶0112. Fig. 8 with ¶0062 – information provided by the operating system).
However, Guest appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses recreating application an interface (Sun, Abstract with Fig. 3C-3E and 3I-3K with ¶0148-¶0153), including
and at the end of the capture duration, reproduce application events within the geometric area of the on-screen graphical user interface rendered captured during the capture duration on a display of the computer system at a subsequent time (Sun, Fig. 3C-3E, 3I-3K, Fig. 11 with ¶0021, ¶0060, ¶0148-¶0153, ¶0218 – capturing a sequence of application events during a time period in the form of a shortcut. The events are recreated at a later time when the shortcut is selected. See also Figs. 6A-6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the screenshots of Guest to include a shortcut sequence based on the teachings of Sun. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate sharing or transferring shortcut instructions, which simplify operations for the user (Sun, ¶0004).
Regarding claim 12, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein a reproduced geometric area on the display of the remote computer system implements, on the remote computer system, an on-screen graphical user interface of the first application program and an on-screen graphical user interface of the second application program (Guest, Fig. 14 with ¶0129-¶0133 – screenshot includes multiple applications for sharing with external devices. Multiple identified applications within the screenshot are shared via image and metadata. Applications are loaded on the remote devices. At least ¶0098 – creating some or all of the characteristics of the session state from the screenshot+ including loading the corresponding application on the mobile device for use. See also Figs. 10-13. See also Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 12, and further discloses activating one or more graphical user elements of the geometric area of the on-screen graphical user interface reproduced on the display of the remote computer system (Guest, Fig. 14 with ¶0129-¶0133 – screenshot includes multiple applications for sharing with external devices. Multiple identified applications within the screenshot are shared via image and metadata. Applications are loaded on the remote devices. At least ¶0098 – creating some or all of the characteristics of the session state from the screenshot+ including loading the corresponding application on the mobile device for use. See also Figs. 10-13. See also Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the one or more graphical user elements of the geometric area reproduced on the display of the remote computer system is activated by clicking thereon (Guest, Figs. 9 and 14 with ¶0084, ¶0089, ¶0097, and ¶0132 – request to load, such as by clicking on, the screenshot+ file results in recreation of the session state. See also Table 1 line 6 – session state opening results in web browser view of the session).
Regarding claim 15, Guest discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein opening the SW object on the remote computer system causes the on-screen graphical user interface of the first application program and the on-screen graphical user interface of the second application program to be reproduced on a display of the remote computer system (Guest, Figs. 9 and 14 with ¶0084, ¶0089, ¶0097, and ¶0132 – request to load, such as by clicking on, the screenshot+ file results in recreation of the session state. See also Table 1 line 6 – session state opening results in web browser view of the session).
Regarding claim 16, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses packaging the SW object using required methods to capture the information from system memory of the first computer system (Guest, Fig. 9 with ¶0098 – metadata instructions for loading the session state include an application class, a specific application, a specific application version number, different instructions for rendering the application state for different versions of application. Figs. 10-12 and ¶0101-¶0122 – URL for content, page view position, zoom state, specific address viewed. ¶0080 and ¶0088 – combination of metadata and screenshot is stored as a “screenshot+” among a set. Screenshot+ can be a single file or multiple associated files).
Regarding claim 17, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses further comprising packaging the SW object into a file on a local file system of the first computer system and wherein said first and second sub-objects respectively comprise: data; images; definition metadata of on-screen elements; positional metadata of on-screen elements; metadata of functionality of on- screen graphical user interface elements and an identification of said first and second application programs (Guest, Fig. 9 with ¶0096, ¶0098 – screenshot+ image data. Metadata instructions for loading the session state include an application class, a specific application, a specific application version number, different instructions for rendering the application state for different versions of application. Figs. 10-12 and ¶0100-¶0122 – URL for content, page view position, zoom state, specific address viewed, and time index for playback functionality. ¶0080 and ¶0088 – combination of metadata and screenshot is stored as a “screenshot+” among a set. Screenshot+ can be a single file or multiple associated files).
Regarding claim 18, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the OS object system call is invoked responsive to a gesture made using a cursor directing device or responsive to a keystroke of the first computer system (Guest, Fig. 6 with ¶0076, ¶0150 – screenshot request can occur via keyboard command. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware input/output devices described in Applicant' s Specification ¶0061).
Regarding claim 19, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein said first and second sub-objects respectively comprise: data; images; definition metadata of on-screen elements; positional metadata of on-screen elements; metadata of functionality of on-screen graphical user interface elements and an identification of said first and second application programs (Guest, Fig. 9 with ¶0096, ¶0098 – screenshot+ image data. metadata instructions for loading the session state include an application class, a specific application, a specific application version number, different instructions for rendering the application state for different versions of application. Figs. 10-12 and ¶0100-¶0122 – URL for content, page view position, zoom state, specific address viewed, and time index for playback functionality. ¶0080 and ¶0088 – combination of metadata and screenshot is stored as a “screenshot+” among a set. Screenshot+ can be a single file or multiple associated files).
Regarding claim 20, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the SW object further comprises all application events performed by said applications within the geometric area (Sun, Figs. 6A-6C with ¶0169-¶0170 – user operations and application events during the time period are recorded and identified).
Regarding claim 21, Guest discloses an apparatus for encapsulating an on-screen graphical user interface for reproduction on a remote computer system, said apparatus comprising (Guest, Abstract – capturing a screenshot of displayed applications and transfer the screenshot and metadata to additional user equipment. See also ¶0056. ¶0032 – computers are examples of UEs. Fig. 9 with ¶0094-¶0098 – computers sharing screenshot+ files to recreate a session from one UE on a separate UE):
a display screen that displays the on-screen graphical user interface; a general purpose processor; and a system memory operable to store machine-readable instructions, wherein the general purpose processor is operable to execute the machine-readable instructions to (Guest, ¶0031 and ¶0045 – instructions executing instructions stored in hardware memory. Abstract with ¶0051-¶0052 – screen displaying interface)
perform a method of encapsulating an on-screen graphical user interface, the method comprising: initiating a screen capture of the on-screen graphical user interface (GUI) responsive to an OS system call during a capture
identifying a geometric area of the on-screen graphical user interface; creating an software (SW) object for the geometric area of the on-screen GUI rendered during the capture includes multiple applications for sharing with external devices. Multiple identified applications within the screenshot are shared via image and metadata. Applications are loaded on the remote devices),
wherein the SW object comprises a first sub-object comprising information for reproducing an on-screen graphical user interface of a first application program and a second sub-object comprising information for reproducing an on-screen GUI of a second application program (Guest, Fig. 9 with ¶0098 – metadata instructions for loading the session state include an application class, a specific application, a specific application version number, different instructions for rendering the application state for different versions of application. ¶0100 – specific video naming or timing for rendering the video. Figs. 10-12 and ¶0101-¶0122 – URL for content, page view position, zoom state, specific address viewed. ¶0080 and ¶0088 – combination of metadata and screenshot is stored as a “screenshot+” among a set. Screenshot+ can be a single file or multiple associated files. Application is downloaded based on application metadata. Figs. 13-14 with ¶0123-¶0133 - screenshot includes multiple applications for sharing with external devices. Multiple identified applications within the screenshot are shared via image and metadata. Applications are loaded on the remote devices),
and wherein at least part of the on-screen GUI of the first application program and at least part of the on-screen GUI of the second application program are displayed within the geometric area of the on-screen GUI (Guest, Figs. 13-14 with ¶0123-¶0133 - screenshot includes multiple applications for sharing with external devices. Multiple identified applications within the screenshot are shared via image and metadata. ¶0150 – application is within the user-defined area);
and after the capture number, different instructions for rendering the application state for different versions of application. Fig. 13 with ¶0123-¶0127 – sequence of chat history events is captured and recreated. Figs. 10-12 and ¶0101-¶0122 – URL for content, page view position, zoom state, specific address viewed, and time index for playback functionality. ¶0080 and ¶0088 – combination of metadata and screenshot is stored as a “screenshot+” among a set. Screenshot+ can be a single file or multiple associated files).
However, Guest appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses recreating application an interface (Sun, Abstract with Fig. 3C-3E and 3I-3K with ¶0148-¶0153), including
and at the end of the capture duration, reproduce application events within the geometric area of the on-screen graphical user interface rendered captured during the capture duration on a display of the computer system at a subsequent time (Sun, Fig. 3C-3E, 3I-3K, Fig. 11 with ¶0021, ¶0060, ¶0148-¶0153, ¶0218 – capturing a sequence of application events during a time period in the form of a shortcut. The events are recreated at a later time when the shortcut is selected. See also Figs. 6A-6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the screenshots of Guest to include a shortcut sequence based on the teachings of Sun. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate sharing or transferring shortcut instructions, which simplify operations for the user (Sun, ¶0004).
Regarding claim 23, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 21 above, and further discloses wherein the SW object comprises captured application events of the geometric area, and wherein the method further comprises executing the captured application events in an independent GUI or within said second application (Guest, Figs. 13-14 with ¶0123-¶0133 - screenshot includes multiple applications for sharing with external devices. Multiple identified applications within the screenshot are shared via image and metadata. Applications are loaded on the remote devices. Sun, Fig. 3C-3E, 3I-3K, Fig. 11 with ¶0021, ¶0060, ¶0148-¶0153, ¶0218 – capturing a sequence of application events during a time period in the form of a shortcut. The events are recreated at a later time when the shortcut is selected).
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest in view of Sun in further view of ET Mantra.
Regarding claim 2, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Guest as modified appears not to expressly disclose and responsive to the OS system call, modifying an on-screen cursor to indicate that the capture portion of the on-screen graphical user interface to be encapsulated is to be defined.
However, in the same field of endeavor, ET Mantra discloses screen capture (ET Mantra, Page 1 @ 0:35 into the video), including
modifying an on-screen cursor to indicate that the capture portion of the on-screen graphical user interface to be encapsulated is to be defined (ET Mantra, Pages 1-6 @ 0:35, 0:41, 0:44, 1:22, 1:24, and 1:27 into the video. The user creates a geometric area for the screen capture, including mouse cursor changing during geometric area specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the multiple screenshots of Guest as modified to include a modified cursor based on the teachings of ET Mantra. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively communicate to the user the effect of the cursor operation, making the user interface more intuitive.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest in view of Sun in further view of Aymeloglu.
Regarding claim 8, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the user input is received responsive to
However, Guest as modified appears not to expressly idskcose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Aymeloglu discloses sharing information of an application GUI (Aymeloglu, Abstract),
wherein the first user input is received responsive to clicking a button of a user input device, and the second user input is received responsive to releasing the button of the user input device (Aymeloglu, Figs. 5 and 6 with ¶0087-¶0088 – user drags a rectangle over the GUI to define a region for a screenshot. In this case, the user clicks a mouse and drags a rectangle to define a region. See also ¶0099 – generating the screenshot responsive to a key release).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the application screenshot Guest, to be performed according to a mouse click input based on the teachings of Aymeloglu. The motivation for doing so would have been to conveniently realize the ability to perform screenshots via common input hardware such as a mouse (Aymeloglu, ¶0013-¶0014).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest in view of Sun in further view of Shelton.
Regarding claim 9, Guest as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the object comprises at least one of an SW object and a OS kernel object, and wherein the object further comprises an
However, Guest appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shelton discloses transferring an application from one computer to another (Shelton, Abstract)
wherein the object comprises at least one of an SW object and a OS kernel object, and wherein the object further comprises an unfold flag indicating that the object is encapsulated for execution in a second application and or on a remote computer system as a standalone SW object (Shelton, ¶0050-¶0057 – JAR/ATX file operating system object including cryptographic signatures and content manifests. ¶0136-¶0137 – package items are generated and stored in a container file before transfer to target device. ¶0083-0097 – metadata indicating that the object is encapsulated for execution on a remote computer system includes application name and application dependencies. ¶0139 – package contents include information to enable installation and execution of the package. See also ¶0147-¶0151 and ¶0056 for additional flags identifying installation components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the application executable of Guest as modified, to include an unfold flag for execution on a remote computer system based on the teachings of Shelton. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate sharing of applications between dissimilar types of devices (Shelton, ¶0034-¶0040).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest in view of Sun in further view of Milligan.
Regarding claim 22, Guest discloses the elements of claim 21 above, and further discloses wherein the general purpose processor is operable to package said object using at least one of a
However, Guest as modified appears not to expressly disclose using a pointer. However in the same field of endeavor, Milligan discloses capturing data instants or snapshots (Milligan, ¶0006)
including storing the file in system memory using a pointer (Milligan, Abstract and at least ¶0005-¶0012 and ¶0033 – pointers for creating multiple references to an individual file or dataset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the application of Guest as modified to use pointers based on the teachings of Milligan. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable faster packaging of files and to reduce storage overhead (Milligan, ¶0005-¶0012).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174