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The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the title.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claim 30 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 30.
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims received on 1/15/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 16 in the filing on 1/15/2026 that in the cited prior art, “an operation to the sharing icon and also an operation for selecting the screen to be shared must be performed in the first device,” which contradicts the amended limitation “without the need of a sharing operation to the input section,” of claim 15.
Response to Argument 1: Respectfully, the claims recite “outputting, without the need of a sharing operation to the input section, information for enabling… device to identify an image… and can be displayed…” The limitation “without the need of a sharing operation” is in the middle of the recited portion above. The Examiner interprets this to mean that when “outputting…information for enabling… device to identify an image… and can be displayed…” that there is no sharing operation performed. Finio Fig. 3-4 shows a switch from a user’s face to a PowerPoint screen shared from a second device (laptop) onto the first mobile device with a tap input. There is no sharing operation (e.g. “do you want to share this screen” prompt) is shown when switching from Fig. 3 to Fig. 4. Thus, no sharing operation is disclosed by Finio, which meets the claims as presented. Clarification on when the sharing operation is not supposed to occur is recommended.
Furthermore, it is noted that the term “sharing operation” is not defined in the specification. The Examiner interprets a sharing operation to be a prompt to initiate a screen sharing session (e.g. “do you want to share this screen” prompt). Clarification on what a sharing operation is, is recommended.
Argument 2: Applicant argues on page 16 that “even if the user operates the sharing icon on the first device to share the screen displayed on this first device with another (second) device, the screen displayed on this another (second) device cannot be simultaneously shared with the first device,” and “bidirectional screen sharing” in claim 15.
Response to Argument 2: Respectfully, claim 15 does not require the feature of simultaneously sharing, nor bidirectional screen sharing. The terms “simultaneous” nor “bidirectional” do not appear in claim 15. If the applicant wishes for this feature to be claimed, the Examiner recommends amending with this feature, with support from the instant specification.
Argument 3: Applicant argues on page 16 that the cited prior art does not teach “the unique objects as described in the paragraphs [0004-0006] of the present specification.”
Response to Argument 3: Respectfully, the features and functions described in the specification are not described in the claims. If the applicant wishes for these feature to be claimed, the Examiner recommends amending the claims to include these features, with support from the instant specification.
This meets the claim limitations as currently claimed, and Applicant's Arguments 1-3 filed on 1/15/2026 are not persuasive. Applicant’s remaining statements regarding the remaining independent and dependent claims are moot or not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15-31 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.
Claim 15 is amended to recite “without the need of a sharing operation to the input section.” Applicant argues on page 16 in the filing on 1/16/2026 that this means a screen sharing operation must not ever be performed in advance. The Examiner considers this interpretation. Additionally, the amended limitation is in the middle of an outputting limitation: “outputting, without the need of a sharing operation to the input section, information for enabling…” Thus, the amended limitation could also be considered to be at the time of outputting. Thus, it is unclear when “without the need of a sharing operation” should be considered. For example, should “without the need of a sharing operation” be considered “not ever performed in advance”? Or should “without the need of a sharing operation” be considered “not performed at the time of outputting?” Clarification on when the sharing operation is not to occur is required.
If the interpretation is “not ever performed in advance,” as argued, the Examiner is also unclear on how screen sharing would occur between two devices without a sharing operation. There must be some user initialization and a handshake to communicate screen sharing, and that would be a sharing operation performed before a screen sharing session (in advance). Clarification on how this feature would work is needed.
For the purposes of express examination, the Examiner interprets this to mean “without the need of a sharing operation to the input section at the time of outputting.” Claims 16-20 recite similar limitations.
Claims 21-31 depend on independent claim 15, and inherit the lack of clarity issues of independent claim 15.
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 15-31 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “without the need of a sharing operation to the input section.” Applicant argues on page 16 in the filing on 1/16/2026 that this claim limitation means a screen sharing operation must not ever be performed in advance. However, instant specification 0071 recites “the icon 409 is a sharing icon that is operated at the time of… starting video calling, screen sharing.” It appears that the instant specification discloses that an operation to initiate screen sharing must be performed before a screen sharing session. This is in contradiction to the claimed limitation, above. Thus, this appears to be new matter. Claims 16-20 recite similar limitations.
Claims 21-31 depend on independent claim 15, and inherit the new matter issues of independent claim 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Screen captures from YouTube clip entitled “How to Use Zoom on your Phone (Android),” uploaded 4/7/2020 by user “Ben Finio,” retrieved from the internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKHZuJlHLuk, (hereinafter “Finio”), in view of Screen captures from YouTube clip entitled “Zoom on your iPhone, iPad, or other Mobile Tutorial,” uploaded 4/7/2020 by user “Dottotech,” retrieved from the internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2paLi-ECto, (hereinafter “Dottotech”). Finio and Dottotech are both included in the form 892 dated 7/30/2025.
Claim 15: Finio teaches “A method for controlling an image display processing device that includes a processor, a memory, an input section, and a display section (Finio Fig. 1 Smart phone device includes a CPU, memory, input via touch screen, and display via touch screen), the method being executed in the image display processing device and comprising the steps of:
outputting, without the need of a sharing operation to the input section, information for enabling an other image display processing device to identify an image that is part of a given image and can be displayed on the display section in accordance with a first operation with respect to the input section (Finio Fig. 3-4 shows a switch from a user’s face to a PowerPoint screen shared from a 2nd device (laptop) onto the 1st mobile device in accordance with a tap input. The PowerPoint on the 2nd device is an image that can be displayed on the 1st device, and the PowerPoint is part of a given image of the 2nd device’s shared desktop. It is noted that the term “sharing operation” is not defined in the specification. No sharing operation (e.g. “do you want to share this screen” prompt) is shown when switching from Fig. 3 to Fig. 4. Thus, no sharing operation is needed for this limitation);
receiving information for enabling identification of an image that can be displayed on a display section of the other image display processing device (Finio Fig 5 “instructor will probably be sharing a PowerPoint.” PowerPoint screen is an image that is not only shared to the 1st mobile device, it is also displayed on the 2nd laptop device)…, the information being outputted from the other image display processing device without the need of a sharing operation to the input section of the other image display processing device (Finio Fig. 3-4 shows a switch from a user’s face to a PowerPoint screen shared from a 2nd device (laptop) onto the 1st mobile device in accordance with a tap input. The PowerPoint is an image from the 2nd device that can be displayed on the 1st device. The PowerPoint can be displayed on the narrator’s phone, without a sharing operation on the other device (moose user’s device)); and
switching, in accordance with a second operation with respect to the input section, an image displayed on the display section to any of a plurality of types of images (Finio Fig. 1-4 shows switching screens in accordance to touch gestures) including a first image that is part of the given image corresponding to the first operation with respect to the input section of the image display processing device (Finio Fig. 3-4 switches to a PowerPoint, which is an image from 2nd laptop) and a second image identified based on the information received in the receiving step (A second image in the receiving step can be an image on the 2nd device, or an image that is shared to the 2nd device. Finio Fig. 1-2 switches to participant’s face, which is an image on the 2nd device that can be displayed on the 2nd device), wherein
in the switching step, when the display section displays an image different from the second image, the displayed image can be switched to the second image by performing the second operation with respect to the input section of the image display processing device at a timing when the second operation is performed (Finio Fig. 1-2 switches to participant’s face at the point in time when the user taps on the participants face), regardless of the presence or absence of an operation with respect to the input section of the other image display processing device (The switching in Finio Fig. 1-2 on the mobile device is regardless of anything that happens on the 2nd laptop device).”
Finio is silent regarding “in accordance with a first operation with respect to an input section of the other image display processing device.”
Dottotech teaches “A method for controlling an image display processing device that includes a processor, a memory, an input section, and a display section (Dottotech Fig. 1 Smart phone device includes a CPU, memory, input via touch screen, and display via touch screen), the method being executed in the image display processing device and comprising the steps of:
receiving information for enabling identification of an image that can be displayed on a display section of the other image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 1 shows laptop with a split screen which includes the mobile participant on left and laptop participant on right. Dottotech Fig. 2-3 shows tablet device as a 1st device sharing a whiteboard image to the 2nd laptop device) in accordance with a first operation with respect to an input section of the other image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 4 laptop as an other (2nd) device, outputting a “Open zoom link” button to join the conference call. A whiteboard from 1st device is shared to the laptop 2nd device, in according with the acceptance of a conference call)…”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Finio to include the feature of having the ability to display an image on a second device in accordance with a user operation as disclosed by Dottotech.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to control which image and when the image should appear, increasing user flexibility.
Claim 16: Finio teaches “A method for controlling an image display processing device that includes a processor, a memory, an input section, and a display section (Finio Fig. 1 Smart phone device includes a CPU, memory, input via touch screen, and display via touch screen), the method being executed in the image display processing device and comprising the steps of:
outputting, without the need of a sharing operation to the input section, information for enabling an other image display processing device to identify an image that is part of a given image and can be displayed on the display section in accordance with a first operation with respect to the input section (Finio Fig. 3-4 shows a switch from a user’s face to a PowerPoint screen shared from a 2nd device (laptop) onto the 1st mobile device in accordance with a tap input. The PowerPoint on the 2nd device is an image that can be displayed on the 1st device, and the PowerPoint is part of a given image of the 2nd device’s shared desktop. It is noted that the term “sharing operation” is not defined in the specification. No sharing operation (e.g. “do you want to share this screen” prompt) is shown when switching from Fig. 3 to Fig. 4. Thus, no sharing operation is needed for this limitation);
receiving information for enabling identification of an image that can be displayed on a display section of the other image display processing device (Finio Fig 5 “instructor will probably be sharing a PowerPoint.” PowerPoint screen is an image that is not only shared to the 1st mobile device, it is also displayed on the 2nd laptop device)…, the information being outputted from the other image display processing device without the need of a sharing operation to the input section of the other image display processing device (Finio Fig. 3-4 shows a switch from a user’s face to a PowerPoint screen shared from a 2nd device (laptop) onto the 1st mobile device in accordance with a tap input. The PowerPoint is an image from the 2nd device that can be displayed on the 1st device. The PowerPoint can be displayed on the narrator’s phone, without a sharing operation on the other device (moose user’s device)); and
switching, in accordance with a second operation with respect to the input section, an image displayed on the display section to any of a plurality of types of images (Finio Fig. 1-4 shows switching screens in accordance to touch gestures) including a first image that is part of the given image corresponding to the first operation with respect to the input section of the image display processing device (Finio Fig. 3-4 switches to a PowerPoint, which is an image from 2nd laptop) and a second image identified based on the information received in the receiving step (A second image in the receiving step can be an image on the 2nd device, or an image that is shared to the 2nd device. Finio Fig. 1-2 switches to participant’s face, which is an image on the 2nd device that can be displayed on the 2nd device),…”
Finio is silent regarding “in accordance with a first operation with respect to an input section of the other image display processing device;…
also in the other image display processing device, an image displayed can be switched, in accordance with a second operation with respect to the input section of the other image display processing device, to any of a plurality of types of images including an image corresponding to the first operation with respect to the input section of the other image display processing device and a second image identified based on the information outputted in the output step, and
in the switching step, regardless of which of the images is displayed on the display section of the other image display processing device, the displayed image can be switched, in accordance with the second operation with respect to the input section, to any of the plurality of types of images including the first image and the second image.”
Dottotech teaches “receiving information for enabling identification of an image that can be displayed on a display section of the other image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 1 shows laptop with a split screen which includes the mobile participant on left and laptop participant on right. Dottotech Fig. 2-3 shows tablet device as a 1st device sharing a whiteboard image to the 2nd laptop device) in accordance with a first operation with respect to an input section of the other image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 4 laptop as an other (2nd) device, outputting a “Open zoom link” button to join the conference call. A whiteboard from 1st device is shared to the laptop 2nd device, in according with the acceptance of a conference call),…
also in the other image display processing device, an image displayed can be switched, in accordance with a second operation with respect to the input section of the other image display processing device, to any of a plurality of types of images including an image corresponding to the first operation with respect to the input section of the other image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 4 shows inputs to join the meeting on the 2nd laptop device, corresponding to the first operation of the 2nd device. Fig. 3 shows whiteboard from 1st device shared to 2nd laptop device) and a second image identified based on the information outputted in the output step (Dottotech Fig. 5-6 shows switching from a chat window to an image of a user on the 2nd device, which is information from the output step that can be displayed on the 1st device), and
in the switching step, regardless of which of the images is displayed on the display section of the other image display processing device, the displayed image can be switched, in accordance with the second operation with respect to the input section, to any of the plurality of types of images including the first image (Dottotech Fig. 4 shows, regardless of what is displayed on the 2nd laptop device, user inputs to join the meeting on the 2nd laptop device, corresponding to the first operation of the 2nd device. Fig. 3 shows whiteboard from 1st device shared to 2nd laptop device) and the second image (Dottotech Fig. 5-6 shows switching from a chat window to an image of a user on the 2nd device, which is information from the output step that can be displayed on the 1st device).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Finio to include the feature of having the ability to change the display contents as disclosed by Dottotech.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to control which image and when the image should appear, increasing user flexibility.
Claim 17: Finio teaches “A method for controlling an image display processing device that includes a processor, a memory, an input section, and a display section (Finio Fig. 1 Smart phone device includes a CPU, memory, input via touch screen, and display via touch screen), the method being executed in the image display processing device and comprising the steps of:
outputting, without the need of a sharing operation to the input section, information for enabling an other image display processing device to identify an image that is part of a given image and can be displayed on the display section in accordance with a first operation with respect to the input section (Finio Fig. 3-4 shows a switch from a user’s face to a PowerPoint screen shared from a 2nd device (laptop) onto the 1st mobile device in accordance with a tap input. The PowerPoint on the 2nd device is an image that can be displayed on the 1st device, and the PowerPoint is part of a given image of the 2nd device’s shared desktop. It is noted that the term “sharing operation” is not defined in the specification. No sharing operation (e.g. “do you want to share this screen” prompt) is shown when switching from Fig. 3 to Fig. 4. Thus, no sharing operation is needed for this limitation);
receiving information for enabling identification of an image that can be displayed on a display section of the other image display processing device (Finio Fig 5 “instructor will probably be sharing a PowerPoint.” PowerPoint screen is an image that is not only shared to the 1st mobile device, it is also displayed on the 2nd laptop device)…, the information being outputted from the other image display processing device without the need of a sharing operation to the input section of the other image display processing device (Finio Fig. 3-4 shows a switch from a user’s face to a PowerPoint screen shared from a 2nd device (laptop) onto the 1st mobile device in accordance with a tap input. The PowerPoint is an image from the 2nd device that can be displayed on the 1st device. The PowerPoint can be displayed on the narrator’s phone, without a sharing operation on the other device (moose user’s device)); and
switching, in accordance with a second operation with respect to the input section, an image displayed on the display section to any of a plurality of types of images (Finio Fig. 1-4 shows switching screens in accordance to touch gestures) including a first image that is part of the given image corresponding to the first operation with respect to the input section of the image display processing device (Finio Fig. 3-4 switches to a PowerPoint, which is an image from 2nd laptop) and a second image identified based on the information received in the receiving step (A second image in the receiving step can be an image on the 2nd device, or an image that is shared to the 2nd device. Finio Fig. 1-2 switches to participant’s face, which is an image on the 2nd device that can be displayed on the 2nd device), wherein
in the output step, the information for enabling the other image display processing device to identify the image that can be displayed on the display section of the image display processing device in accordance with the first operation with respect to the input section is outputted, regardless of which of the plurality of types of images is displayed on the display section of the image display processing device (Finio Fig. 3-4 shows user is able to switch to a PowerPoint, which is an image from 2nd laptop, regardless of what is currently displayed. Additionally, Finio Fig 7 shows user input to switch to a screenshare of a professor image (see same moose user profile in bottom right indicating the same presenter)), and…”
Finio is silent regarding “in accordance with a first operation with respect to an input section of the other image display processing device…
in the receiving step, the information for enabling identification of the image that can be displayed on the display section of the other image display processing device is received, regardless of which of the plurality of types of images is displayed on the display section of the image display processing device.”
Dottotech teaches “receiving information for enabling identification of an image that can be displayed on a display section of the other image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 1 shows laptop with a split screen which includes the mobile participant on left and laptop participant on right. Dottotech Fig. 2-3 shows tablet device as a 1st device sharing a whiteboard image to the 2nd laptop device) in accordance with a first operation with respect to an input section of the other image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 4 laptop as an other (2nd) device, outputting a “Open zoom link” button to join the conference call. A whiteboard from 1st device is shared to the laptop 2nd device, in according with the acceptance of a conference call)…; and
in the receiving step, the information for enabling identification of the image that can be displayed on the display section of the other image display processing device is received, regardless of which of the plurality of types of images is displayed on the display section of the image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 7 shows chat window can be displayed on the 2nd laptop device, regardless of what is displayed on the 1st mobile device).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Finio to include the feature of having the ability to change the display contents as disclosed by Dottotech.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to control which image and when the image should appear, increasing user flexibility.
Claim 18: Finio and Dottotech teach an image display processing device comprising: a processor;
a memory; an input section; and a display section (Finio Fig. 1 Smart phone device includes a CPU, memory, input via touch screen, and display via touch screen), wherein the information processing device includes the steps corresponding to the method of claim 15; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19: Finio and Dottotech teach an image display processing device comprising: a processor;
a memory; an input section; and a display section (Finio Fig. 1 Smart phone device includes a CPU, memory, input via touch screen, and display via touch screen), wherein the information processing device includes the steps corresponding to the method of claim 16; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20: Finio and Dottotech teach an image display processing device comprising: a processor;
a memory; an input section; and a display section (Finio Fig. 1 Smart phone device includes a CPU, memory, input via touch screen, and display via touch screen), wherein the information processing device includes the steps corresponding to the method of claim 17; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Finio teaches “wherein
the plurality of types of images include a predetermined third image that is different from both the first image and the second image (Finio Fig. 8-9 shows switching to a participants window, by tapping the “Participants” button. Participants window is different from the screen share image and the user profile image), and
the method includes the step of displaying a predetermined icon image for receiving an operation to permit the first image to be displayed in the… image display processing device when the displayed image is switched to the third image (Finio Fig. 9 shows a “close” button in the top left corner, which returns to the previous screen. In Fig. 8-9’s case, it would be the participants gallery view of Fig. 8. It is noted however, that in Fig. 4, the “Participants” button is displayed on the shared screen (first image), as well. Tapping to show the participants list, and then closing it, would return the user to the shared screen (first image) of Fig. 4. This is permitting the first image, the shared screen, to be displayed again), whereas the predetermined icon image is not displayed when the displayed image is switched to the first image and the second image (Finio Fig. 1-4 shows the close button of the participants window is not displayed when the shared screen or the user’s profile is displayed).”
Finio is silent regarding displayed in the “other” information processing device.
Dottotech teaches “the method includes the step of displaying a predetermined icon image for receiving an operation to permit the first image to be displayed in the other image display processing device when the displayed image is switched to the third image (Dottotech Fig. 5 close button in the top left corner is an icon to close the chat window, which permits the first image, the user’s face, to be fully displayed on the 2nd device again), whereas the predetermined icon image is not displayed when the displayed image is switched to the first image and the second image (Dottotech Fig. 1, 3 shows the close button of the chat window is not displayed when the shared screen or the user’s profile is displayed).”
One would have been motivated to combine Finio and Dottotech, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to navigate the user to reveal the previously viewed window on other devices, which helps the user keep track of their navigation path, preventing users from getting lost during navigation.
Claim 22: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Finio teaches “wherein
the plurality of types of images include a predetermined third image that is different from both the first image and the second image (Finio Fig. 8-9 participant’s button brings up a participants’ window as a third image, different from the shared background and user’s profile), and
in the switching step, switching from the first image to the second image and switching from the second image to the first image are regulated (Finio Fig. 1-4 switches back and forth from a PowerPoint image to a user profile), whereas switching between the first image and the third image and switching between the second image and the third image are allowed (Finio Fig. 8-9 participant’s button is displayed at every screen, which brings up a participants’ window as a third image, at any time regardless of what is shown on the screen).”
Claim 23: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Finio teaches “wherein
the method includes the step of displaying a plurality of types of corresponding images that correspond to the plurality of types of images, regardless of the type of the image displayed by switching in the switching step (Finio Fig. 1-4 shows a PowerPoint image as a first type, and a user profile as a second type. These are shown regardless of which screen is displayed), with the corresponding image that corresponds to the image displayed by switching in the switching step being displayed in a different manner from those for the other corresponding images (Finio Fig. 1-4 shows a PowerPoint image as a first type, displayed in a larger manner. Also shows a user profile image as a second type, displayed in a smaller manner).”
Claim 24: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Finio teaches “wherein
the information outputted in the output step and the information received in the receiving step are each region information for identifying a region of the given image corresponding to the first operation with respect to the input section (Finio Fig. 1-4 show switching back and forth from a first image to a second image. Finio shows a PowerPoint image shared from a 2nd laptop device as information output in the output step. PowerPoint image is also the information in the receiving step, as the image shared from the 2nd laptop device. The PowerPoint image of both steps are each region information (region of image transmitted to be shared, as well as region of image received from sharing)).”
Claim 25: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Finio teaches “wherein
the input section is a touch panel,
the first operation includes an operation with respect to the touch panel, and
the information outputted in the output step and the information received in the receiving step are each operation mode information for enabling identification of a mode of the operation with respect to the touch panel (Finio Fig. 1-4 34 show switching back and forth from a first image to a second image. These are operational modes of viewing a shared PowerPoint and viewing the user’s profile).”
Claim 26: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Finio teaches “wherein
the information outputted in the output step and the information received in the receiving step are each image information for enabling display of an image of a region of the given image corresponding to the first operation with respect to the input section (Finio Fig. 1-4 show switching back and forth from a first image to a second image. Finio shows a PowerPoint image shared from a 2nd laptop device as information output in the output step. PowerPoint image is also the information in the receiving step, as the image shared from the 2nd laptop device. The PowerPoint image of both steps are each image information for the display of the PowerPoint image of a background region).”
Claim 27: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Finio teaches “comprising the steps of:
displaying, on the display section of the image display processing device, a composite image including at least the image that is part of the given image corresponding to the operation with respect to the input section of the image display processing device and the image identified based on the information received in the receiving step (Finio Fig. 4 shows a composite image including both the PowerPoint shared screen, and the user’s profile); and
setting a control pattern of the image display processing device from a plurality of types of control patterns (Finio Fig. 1-4 34 show switching back and forth from a first image to a second image; setting which control pattern by tapping), wherein
the plurality of types of control patterns include a first control pattern that causes the image display processing device to execute the output step, the receiving step, and the switching step (Finio Fig. 1-4 show switching back and forth from a first image to a second image) and a second control pattern that causes the image display processing device to execute the output step, the receiving step, and the composite image displaying step (Finio Fig. 1-4 show switching back and forth from a composite image with a larger first image to a composite image with a larger second image).”
Dottotech teaches “displaying, on the display section of the image display processing device, a composite image including at least the image that is part of the given image corresponding to the operation with respect to the input section of the information processing device and the image identified based on the information received in the receiving step (Dottotech Fig. 1 shows laptop with a split screen which includes the mobile participant on left and laptop participant on right);”
One would have been motivated to combine Finio and Dottotech, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit where the composite image can be displayed on multiple devices, according to user desire, increasing user flexibility.
Claim 28: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 27, above. Dottotech teaches “wherein
in the control pattern setting step, according to a display size of the display section of the image display processing device, the first control pattern is set when the display size is smaller than a predetermined size and the second control pattern is set when the display size is equal to or larger than the predetermined size (Dottotech Fig. 8-9 shows different control patterns in portrait mode with a smaller display width size, and shows landscape mode where the display width size is larger).”
One would have been motivated to combine Finio and Dottotech, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit where images can be stretched to fit larger screen, increasing viewability.
Claim 29: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 27, above. Dottotech teaches “wherein
in the control pattern setting step, any of the plurality of types of control patterns is set in accordance with a third operation with respect to the input section (Dottotech Fig. 8-9 shows different control patterns in portrait mode with a smaller display size, and shows landscape mode where the display size is larger. This is with a third operation of rotating the touch screen device).”
One would have been motivated to combine Finio and Dottotech, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit where images can be stretched to fit larger screen, increasing viewability.
Claim 30: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Dottotech teaches “wherein
the given image that serves as a display target image to be displayed on the display section of the image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 10 shows that the image to be displayed on the 1st mobile device is a chat screen) is different from a given image that serves as a display target image to be displayed on the display section of the other image display processing device (Dottotech Fig. 10 shows that the image to be displayed on the 2nd laptop device is a split screen user profile screen, which is different than the chat screen).”
One would have been motivated to combine Finio and Dottotech, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to have individual controls for images on display screens, according to users’ desires, increasing customization and user flexibility.
Claim 31: Finio and Dottotech teach all the limitations of claim 15, above. Finio teaches “wherein
the input section is a touch panel,
the second operation is a moving gesture along a predetermined direction on the touch panel (Finio Fig. 10 starts from PowerPoint first image, and swipes to the left to show participants on the screen to the right), and
in the switching step, in a state where the first image is displayed on the display section of the image display processing device, switching to another image included in the plurality of types of images is not achieved by a moving gesture toward a specific direction along the predetermined direction and can be achieved by a moving gesture toward a direction that is different from the specific direction along the predetermined direction (Finio Fig. 7 starts from a screenshare of a professor image (see same moose user profile in bottom right indicating the same presenter), and swipes to the right to show a different image to the left).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kapoor (US 20140032735 A1) listed on 892 is related to two-way screen sharing.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179