DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE and Amendment dated 12 August 2026. Claims 1, 2, 18, 19, 22, 30, 33 and 34 are amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 18-26 and 28-36 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 18-21, 23, 24, 26, 29-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2012/0274656 A1) in view of Jo et al. (US 2020/0057589 A1) and further in view of Gummalla et al. (US 2007/0203682 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Kang teaches a method comprising:
implemented by a first electronic device and comprising: obtaining information of second dots per inch (DPI) of a second electronic device [(e.g. see Kang paragraph 0111) ”a DPI value may be obtained from display unit information of external device 200 at step S1010. As described above, the display unit information of external device 200 may be obtained from external device 200 or retrieved from internal memory 150 based on a device ID of external device 200. Agent 182 of user equipment 100 may obtain a DPI value for external device 200, based on the obtained display unit information of external device 200”].
setting first DPI of the first electronic device and the second DPI to be the same DPI [(e.g. see Kang paragraphs 0114, 0117) ”the obtained DPI value may be compared with a default DPI value of user equipment 100. For example, agent 182 may determine whether to change the default DPI based on the obtained DPI value by comparing the obtained DPI value with the default DPI value … When the obtained DPI value is different from the default DPI value … At step S1040, the default DPI value may be changed to the obtained DPI value”].
creating a virtual display on the first electronic device, wherein third DPI of the virtual display is set to be the same as the second DPI [(e.g. see Kang paragraphs 0022, 0068) ”The method may further include determining whether an activated application dynamically provides a graphic user interface according to change of a display unit when an application is activated after the sensing a connection between the user equipment and the external device, maintaining an updated DPI value included in system configuration information when the activated application dynamically provides a graphic user interface according to change of a display unit, wherein the updated DPI value is a DPI value determined for the external device after the connection … Display unit 160 may receive the image data from at least one of video processing unit 140 and controller 180 and display the received image data. The image data may be produced as a result of certain operations performed by any software programs installed in user equipment 100. For example, the image data may be data processed for displaying a graphic user interface produced by an operation system and applications, performed in user equipment 100”]. Examiner notes that, as the first electronic device is already set to the second DPI, anything displayed on the first electronic device will also be set to the second DPI. Examiner further notes that the graphical user interface in Kang is provided with the updated DPI value (i.e. external device’s DPI value).
creating, based on the same DPI, a first window in the virtual display in response to the first trigger event, wherein the first window is an application window corresponding to the first application [(e.g. see Kang paragraphs 0092, 0118) ”They may handle the low-level data, network., and graphic requests made by Android applications. Application framework layer 720 may implement a toolkit of higher-level application services such as window management … Application framework 184 may control applications, which are in operation or requested to be operated, to reconfigure a screen layout to be displayed with the updated DPI value”].
obtaining, a window image of the first window; obtaining, based on the first image, a second image of the virtual display [(e.g. see Kang paragraphs 0119, 0121, 0122, 0125) ”the applications in operation or the application requested to be operated may reconfigure the image data by adjusting a screen layout based on the updated DPI value. The image data may be reconfigured by following three methods in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention … the applications may redraw a graphic user interface with the updated DPI value … When corresponding applications are initiated again by a user or a system, the applications may reconfigure a corresponding graphic user interface with the updated DPI value … the image data may be configured or reconfigured by adjusting a screen layout based on the updated DPI value at step S1060”].
sending the second image to the second electronic device for display [(e.g. see Kang paragraph 0125) ”agent 184 may transmit the reconfigured image data with the adjusted screen layout to external device 200 through port unit 170 at step S1070”].
Kang does not specifically teach receiving, from a user, a trigger event on a first application or scaling the window image to obtain a first image. However, in the same field of invention, Jo teaches:
receiving, from a user, a trigger event on a first application [(e.g. see Jo paragraph 0100, 0219 and Fig. 11) ”the electronic device 201 may execute an application for sharing a screen in the middle of establishing a communication link with the external electronic device for sharing the screen … The electronic device 201 may change the aspect ratio according to the aspect ratio selected on the UI and display the changed aspect ratio on the display as denoted by reference numbers 1105 and 1107”].
scaling the window image to obtain a first image [(e.g. see Jo paragraphs 0119, 0122, 0125) ”the electronic device may select transfer screen information from the list generated in preferential consideration of the aspect ratio of the external electronic device under the control of the processor 210 … the electronic device 210 may change the aspect ratio of the screen displayed on the display 260 of the electronic device according to the aspect ratio included in the selected screen information under the control of the processor 210 … the aspect ratio (e.g., 18.5:9) of the electronic device 201 and the aspect ratio (e.g., 16:9) of the selected transfer screen information may differ from each other. In this case, the electronic device 201 may change its aspect ratio to become identical with the aspect ratio (e.g., 16:9) of the selected transfer screen information”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Kang and Jo, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add receiving, from a user, a trigger event on a first application and scaling the window image to obtain a first image, as taught by Jo, to the teachings of Kang because it allows a user to enjoy content more comfortably by providing an optimized screen to an external electronic device (e.g. see Jo paragraph 0007).
Kang and Jo do not specifically teach wherein the virtual display is a software-defined simulated display that is separate from a physical display of the first electronic device. However, in the same field of invention, Gummalla teaches:
wherein the virtual display is a software-defined simulated display that is separate from a physical display of the first electronic device [(e.g. see Gummalla paragraphs 0002, 0019, 0021) ” An external display simulator is configured to act as a secondary display on which an application can display images. The external display simulator intercepts the display data from an application and may bypass the attached display hardware. The external display simulator is extensible and may be configured to support many different display resolutions and modes. The extensibility of the display mode support feature allows for the customization of the display data to be verified for any conceivable display mode … External display simulator 206 informs display module 204 of the different display modes that external display simulator 206 is configured to support. External display simulator 206 also informs display module 204 that other display modes may be supported for verification after programming external display simulator 206 via control panel 207. A user may then program external display simulator 206 to support a specific display mode. For example, external display simulator 206 may be programmed to support any conceivable resolution, such as 800.times.600 or 1024.times.768, or a particular dots-per-inch (dpi) value … external display simulator 206 renders output from application 202 to a window associated with application 258. The window is configured to display the data in accordance with a predetermined display mode”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Kang, Jo and Gummalla, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the virtual display is a software-defined simulated display that is separate from a physical display of the first electronic device, as taught by Gummalla, to the teachings of Kang and Jo because it allows the display data from an application to be customized for any conceivable display mode (e.g. see Gummalla paragraph 0007).
As for dependent claim 2, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 1 and Kang further teaches:
wherein the first DPI is initially a preset factory-provisioned DPI [(e.g. see Kang paragraph 0098) ”The default display setting may be information on properties initially set up for displaying the image data on a corresponding display unit. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the default display setting may be an initial display setting for user equipment 100. In general, display setting properties may include a dot per inch (DPI) value, a screen resolution, and a screen size. The default display setting of user equipment 100 may be controlled based on display unit information of display unit 160 of user equipment 100. The display unit information may be information on a corresponding display unit. For example, the display unit information may be hardware specification information of a corresponding display unit. Accordingly, the display unit information may include information on a manufacturer, a model number, a device identifier (ID), an appropriate DPI value, a screen size, the number of pixels, supporting screen resolutions, luminance, supporting aspect ratios, refresh rates, and a response time”]. Examiner notes that the display hardware has an initial default appropriate DPI value from the manufacturer.
As for dependent claim 18, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 2 and Kang further teaches:
wherein setting the first DPI and the second DPI to be the same DPI comprises setting the first DPI to be the same as the second DPI [(e.g. see Kang paragraphs 0113, 0117) ”an appropriate DPI value may be retrieved from internal memory 150 based on a device ID of external device 200 … the default DPI value may be changed to the obtained DPI value. For example, agent 180 may request application framework 184 to change the default DPI value. Accordingly, application framework 184 may update the default DPI value included in system configuration information of user equipment 100 with the obtained DPI value.”].
As for dependent claim 19, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 2 and Kang further teaches:
wherein setting the first DPI and the second DPI to be the same DPI comprises setting the second DPI to be the same as the first DPI [(e.g. see Kang paragraphs 0113, 0117) ”an appropriate DPI value may be retrieved from internal memory 150 based on a device ID of external device 200 … the default DPI value may be changed to the obtained DPI value. For example, agent 180 may request application framework 184 to change the default DPI value. Accordingly, application framework 184 may update the default DPI value included in system configuration information of user equipment 100 with the obtained DPI value.”].
As for dependent claim 20, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 1, but Kang does not specifically teach the following limitations. However, Jo teaches:
wherein creating the first window comprises: obtaining a size of a preset window and a preset scale ratio [(e.g. see Jo paragraphs 0124, 0125) ”The resolution of the electronic device 201 may be changed from the maximum supportable resolution (e.g., 2960*1440) … the aspect ratio (e.g., 18.5:9) of the electronic device 201].
creating the first window based on the size [(e.g. see Jo paragraphs 0039, 0125) ”The window manager 342 manages GUI resources used on the screen … the maximum supportable resolution (e.g., 2960*1440)”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 21, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 20, but Kang does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Jo teaches:
wherein scaling the window image comprises scaling the window image based on the preset scale ratio to obtain the first image [(e.g. see Jo paragraphs 0119, 0122) ”the electronic device may select transfer screen information from the list generated in preferential consideration of the aspect ratio of the external electronic device under the control of the processor 210 … the electronic device 210 may change the aspect ratio of the screen displayed on the display 260 of the electronic device according to the aspect ratio included in the selected screen information under the control of the processor 210”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 23, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 20, but Kang does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Jo teaches:
wherein the preset scale ratio is based on resolution information and size information of the second electronic device [(e.g. see Jo paragraphs 0048, 0119) ”the electronic device may select transfer screen information from the list generated in preferential consideration of the aspect ratio of the external electronic device under the control of the processor 210 … The display information may include resolutions supported by the external electronic device and an aspect ratio of the external electronic device”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 24, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 1, but Kang does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Jo teaches:
further comprising triggering the trigger event of the first electronic device [(e.g. see Jo paragraph 0100) ”the electronic device 201 may execute an application for sharing a screen in the middle of establishing a communication link with the external electronic device for sharing the screen”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 26, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 1 and Kang further teaches:
further comprising displaying the window image on a display of the first electronic device [(e.g. see Kang paragraph 0012) ”The method may include displaying image data on a first display unit of the user equipment”].
As for dependent claim 29, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 1 and Kang further teaches:
wherein the first window is a floating window, a full-screen window, or an app multiplier [(e.g. see Kang paragraph 0138 and Fig. 12) ”Referring to FIG. 12 and FIG. 13, diagrams (A) of FIG. 12 and FIG. 13 show graphic user interfaces displayed on display unit 160 of user equipment 100 before user equipment 100 is connected to external device 200. Such graphic user interfaces may be displayed on display units 160 and 210 based on image data generated by user equipment 100. Particularly, the image data may be generated by software programs running on user equipment 100. For example, software programs may include applications, referred to as APPs.”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 12, the graphical user interface is full screen.
As for independent claim 30, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach a device. Claim 30 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 31, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 1 and Kang further teaches:
wherein the first electronic device is coupled to the second electronic device through Wi-Fi, a Bluetooth connection, or a wired connection [(e.g. see Kang paragraph 0057 and Fig. 3) ”Referring to FIG. 3, user equipment 100 may be coupled to a pad type device 200-1 in a docking manner as show in a diagram (A). Furthermore, user equipment 100 may be coupled to a laptop computer 200-2 in a docking manner as show in a diagram (B). User equipment 100 may be coupled to a monitor 200-3 through a physical cable as shown in a diagram (C)”].
As for dependent claim 32, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the device as described in claim 30; further, claim 32 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 2.
As for independent claim 33, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claim 33 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 34, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the device as described in claim 30; further, claim 34 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 26. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 26.
As for dependent claim 36, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the device as described in claim 30; further, claim 36 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 29. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 29.
Claims 25, 28 and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2012/0274656 A1) in view of Jo et al. (US 2020/0057589 A1) and further in view of Gummalla et al. (US 2007/0203682 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suh et al. (US 2018/0246634 A1).
As for dependent claim 25, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach further comprising detecting the trigger event from the second electronic device. However, in the same field of invention, Suh teaches:
further comprising detecting the trigger event from the second electronic device [(e.g. see Suh paragraph 0161) ”an electronic device according to some embodiments, when connected to an external display device, may output a home screen 1000 through the external display device. The electronic device may display an app tray 1020 when an input is applied to a function key 1010 of the home screen 1000. The app tray 1020 may include shortcuts for all applications installed in the electronic device … When an input is applied to a shortcut displayed on the app tray 1020, an application corresponding to the shortcut may be executed”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Kang, Jo, Gummalla and Suh, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add further comprising detecting the trigger event from the second electronic device, as taught by Suh, to the teachings of Kang, Jo and Gummalla because it allows for increased usability of the mobile device when connected to an external display (e.g. see Suh paragraph 0005).
As for dependent claim 28, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Suh teaches:
wherein obtaining the second image comprises synthesizing a first layer at which the first image is located and a second layer at which a background is located to obtain the second image [(e.g. see Suh paragraph 0181 and Figs. 16 and 18) ”Referring to the non-limiting example of FIG. 16, the electronic device according to an embodiment, when connected to an external display device, may output a home screen 1600 through the external display device. The home screen 1600 may include a window 1610 that includes an execution screen of an application … The electronic device may convey, to the application displayed in the window 1610, coordinates (e.g., (a, b))”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 25.
As for dependent claim 35, Kang, Jo and Gummalla teach the device as described in claim 30; further, claim 35 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 28. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12 August 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“A visual display is a software-defined simulated display that functions as an independent rendering target, receiving and storing pixel data separately from the hardware display panel. Therefore, Kang fails to disclose ‘creating a virtual display on the first electronic device, wherein the virtual display is a software-defined simulated display that is separate from a physical display of the first electronic device.’” (Page 11).].
The argument described above, in paragraph number 7, with respect to the newly added limitations to the independent claims has been considered, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2013/0080887 A1 issued to Hou on 28 March 2013. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1, 2, 18-26 and 28-36 (e.g. simulated display with a pixels-per-inch setting).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights