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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, 2nd paragraph, filed July 15, 2026, with respect to the objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-13, 15-17, 20, and 23-26 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection are made in view of Chang (US 20140317530A1), Li (US 20220398062A1), Melville (US 20090316116A1), Park (US 20200226387A1), and Ellis (US 20070157266A1).
As per Claim 1, Applicant argues that Prins (US 20200401362A1) has not been shown to suggest size information of the display and a landscape/portrait attribute of the display indicating whether landscape/portrait is supported (p. 10).
In reply, the Examiner points out that Prins describes “re-formatting the visual content for a display having a different pixels-per-inch setting and/or size than the display for which the visual content was formatted” [0063]. Prins describes “dynamically determine the optimal layout based on display parameters such as…the screen size” [0177]. Thus, Prins does teach size information of the display. New grounds of rejection are made in view of Chang to teach a landscape/portrait attribute of the display indicating whether landscape/portrait is supported.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 10, 13, 15, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prins (US 20200401362A1), Chang (US 20140317530A1), Yada (US 20130076764A1), and Kan (US 20160353162A1).
As per Claim 1, Prins teaches a screen projection method, applied to a first electronic device (100, Fig. 1), wherein the first electronic device comprises a first display screen (140), and the method comprises: displaying, by the first electronic device, a first interface in a first window on the first display screen (screen sharing between a sender system 100 and a receiver system 200, sender system 100 may display information on a display 140, display 140 may show a graphical user interface, sender system 100 may be configured for screen sharing with the receiver system 200, [0148], highlight which window is to be shared, generate the VR Screen Share View by changing user interface elements to accommodate the size of the virtual screen, [0200]); receiving, by the first electronic device, a first operation from a user, wherein the first operation is used to indicate to project the first interface to a second electronic device (200) for display to the user, wherein the user operates the first electronic device (screen sharing is initiated, which may be by the sender system itself, e.g., at the request of a user, [0182], [0148]); receiving, by the first electronic device and from the second electronic device, display screen information of a second display screen of the second electronic device (receiver system may indicate characteristics of the rendering or display to the sender system which may affect the legibility of the visual content, such characteristics may include, a resolution of the display, [0049-0051]), wherein the display screen information of the second display screen comprises size information of the second display screen, resolution of the second display screen ([0049-0051], re-formatting the visual content for a display having a different pixels-per-inch setting and/or size than the display for which the visual content was formatted, [0063], dynamically determine the optimal layout based on display parameters such as the screen size, [0177]); adjusting, by the first electronic device, a display style of the first interface based on the display screen information of the second display screen of the second electronic device to obtain an adjusted first interface in response to the first operation; and sending, by the first electronic device, the adjusted first interface to the second electronic device for display (layout of the visual content may be adjusted, dynamically determine the optimal layout based on display parameters such as the screen size, the screen resolution, [0177], screen share orchestrator 720 may generate and update the VR screen share view by adjusting the visual content of the area which is shared, e.g., by changing a color scheme, using different/optimal layouts, [0200], screen sharing functionality applied to the sharing of visual content between two VR systems, with the receiver VR system having legibility constraints over the sender VR system, such as a lower display resolution, and the sender VR system generating an adjusted version of the visual content to be shared which is better legible on the receiver VR system, [0201], sharing the adjusted visual content with a receiver VR system, [0202], [0148, 0182]) in a second window on the second display screen [0200].
However, Prins does not teach wherein the display screen information of the second display screen comprises a landscape/portrait attribute of the second display screen indicating whether landscape/portrait is supported. However, Chang teaches wherein the display screen information of the second display screen comprises a landscape/portrait attribute of the second display screen indicating whether landscape/portrait is supported (second electronic device is arranged in the landscape mode, the first electronic device 100 can support the screen change according to the landscape mode arrangement of the second electronic device 200, the screen output on the first electronic device 100 can be the same as the screen displayed on the second electronic device 200, when the same screen is displayed according to screen sharing, the first electronic device 100 can control a screen layout of the display unit 140 to be different according to a screen layout of the second electronic device 200, when the second electronic device 200 is arranged in the landscape mode, the first electronic device 100 can control a ratio of the screen of the display unit 140 to be appropriate for the landscape mode and display the screen, when the second electronic device 200 is changed from the landscape mode to the portrait mode, the first electronic device 100 can control a ratio of the screen of the display unit 140 to be appropriate for the portrait mode and display the screen, as a result, the first electronic device 100 can output the screen arranged in the same direction as that of the screen output on the display device 240 of the second electronic device 200, [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins so that the display screen information of the second display screen comprises a landscape/portrait attribute of the second display screen indicating whether landscape/portrait is supported because Chang suggests that this way, the data is displayed appropriately for the landscape mode of the second display screen [0139].
However, Prins and Chang do not teach wherein the first window and the second window have a same window size, and the second display screen is larger than the first display screen. However, Yada teaches displaying, by the first electronic device (100), a first window on the first display screen (a function of each unit of the transmission side terminal 100 will be described, the shared window display unit 302 has a function of displaying a shared window so as to enclose a screen that the transmission side terminal 100 wants to share with the reception side terminal 200, [0040]); and sending, by the first electronic device, the data to the second electronic device (200) for display in a second window on the second display screen, wherein the first window and the second window have a same window size (a function of each unit of the reception side terminal 200 will be described, [0043], the shared window display unit 402 has a function of displaying a common screen data transmitted from the transmission side terminal 100 on the shared window at the same size, [0044]). Fig. 6 shows that the second display screen (reception side terminal) is a different size than the first display screen (transmission side terminal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins and Chang so that the first window and the second window have a same window size, and the second display screen is a different size than the first display screen as suggested by Yada. Yada suggests that when the screen sharing function is used in a web meeting system, since terminals have a different sized display, there are different sized shared windows among the terminals in many cases. For this reason, there is a mismatch between a shared screen displayed on a transmission side terminal and that on a reception side terminal, so that there are cases where the meeting cannot proceed smoothy. Thus, this is needed so that the shared screen displayed on a transmission side terminal and that on a reception side terminal match, so that the meeting can proceed smoothly [0004-0005].
However, Prins, Chang, and Yada do not teach wherein the user operates both the first electronic device and the second electronic device; and the second display screen is larger than the first display screen. However, Kan teaches displaying, by the first electronic device, a first interface on the first display screen; receiving, by the first electronic device, a first operation from a user, wherein the first operation is used to indicate to project the first interface to a second electronic device for display to the user, wherein the user operates both the first electric device and the second electronic device; and sending, by the first electronic device, the first interface to the second electronic device for display, wherein the second display screen is larger than the first display screen [0044, 0003]. Kan describes “when users want to share the display interface of the mobile phone to the smart TV for viewing, they can start the preset one-screen sharing application in mobile phone and trigger preset buttons related to one-screen sharing on this application interface” [0044]. Kan describes “push multimedia documents in the mobile terminal (electronic equipment at the sending terminal) such as mobiles, tablets to large-screen extending playing equipment (electronic equipment at the receiving terminal) such as smart TVs, projectors, etc., and the multimedia documents in mobiles and tablets can be viewed through the large-screen extending playing equipment to get better viewing effect” [0003]. Thus, the user operates the mobile phone (first electronic device) that belongs to the user and shares the display interface of the mobile phone to the smart TV (second electronic device) so that the user can get better viewing effect [0044, 0003], and thus the user operates both the mobile phone and the smart TV and both the mobile phone and the smart TV belong to the same user so that the user can get better viewing effect of the display interface that’s on the user’s mobile phone by viewing that display interface on the user’s smart TV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins, Chang, and Yada so that the user operates both the first electronic device and the second electronic device; and the second display screen is larger than the first display screen because Kan suggests that this way, the user gets better viewing effect [0003].
As per Claim 3, Prins teaches wherein the adjusted first interface is the first interface obtained after at least one of a display page layout or a display direction is adjusted [0177, 0200, 0148].
As per Claim 9, Prins does not teach further comprising: determining, by the first electronic device, a second display style of the first electronic device in display based on a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video; and adjusting, by the first electronic device, the first interface based on the second display style. However, Chang teaches further comprising: determining, by the first electronic device, a second display style of the first electronic device in display based on a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video; and adjusting, by the first electronic device, the first content based on the second display style [0139]. Since Prins teaches adjusting the display style of the first interface, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1, this teaching from Chang can be implemented into the first interface of Prins so that it adjusts the first interface based on the second display style.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins to include determining, by the first electronic device, a second display style of the first electronic device in display based on a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video; and adjusting, by the first electronic device, the first interface based on the second display style because Chang suggests that this way, the data is displayed appropriately for the landscape mode of the second display screen [0139].
As per Claim 10, Prins does not teach wherein determining, by the first electronic device, a second display style of the first electronic device in display based on a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the second electronic device, the second electronic device is in landscape, and the first electronic device is in portrait, rotating a display direction of the first interface anticlockwise by a second angle. However, Chang teaches wherein the determining, by the first electronic device, a second display style of the first electronic device in display based on a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the second electronic device, the second electronic device is in landscape, and the first electronic device is in portrait, rotating a display direction of the first content anticlockwise by a second angle [0139]. Since Prins teaches adjusting the first interface, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1, this teaching from Chang can be implemented into the first interface of Prins so that it rotates the display direction of the first interface anticlockwise by a second angle. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 9.
As per Claim 13, Claim 13 is similar in scope to Claim 1, except that Claim 13 includes the additional limitations of at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium which contains computer-executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform the method of Claim 1. Prins teaches at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium which contains computer-executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform the method (non-transitory computer-readable medium may comprise a computer program, the computer program may comprise instructions for causing a processor system to perform any of the abovementioned methods, [0067]). Thus, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1.
As per Claim 15, Claim 15 is similar in scope to Claim 3, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
As per Claim 23, Prins, Chang, and Yada do not teach wherein both the first electronic device and the second electronic device belong to the same user. However, Kan describes “when users want to share the display interface of the mobile phone to the smart TV for viewing, they can start the preset one-screen sharing application in mobile phone and trigger preset buttons related to one-screen sharing on this application interface” [0044]. Kan describes “push multimedia documents in the mobile terminal (electronic equipment at the sending terminal) such as mobiles, tablets to large-screen extending playing equipment (electronic equipment at the receiving terminal) such as smart TVs, projectors, etc., and the multimedia documents in mobiles and tablets can be viewed through the large-screen extending playing equipment to get better viewing effect” [0003]. Thus, the user operates the mobile phone (first electronic device) that belongs to the user and shares the display interface of the mobile phone to the smart TV (second electronic device) so that the user can get better viewing effect [0044, 0003], and thus the user operates both the mobile phone and the smart TV and both the mobile phone and the smart TV belong to the same user so that the user can get better viewing effect of the display interface that’s on the user’s mobile phone by viewing that display interface on the user’s smart TV. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
As per Claim 24, Prins, Chang, and Yada do not teach wherein the first electronic device includes a mobile phone of the user, and the second electronic device includes a tablet or a computer of the same user. However, Kan describes “the popularization of electronic equipment such as smart phones, tablets and smart TV in modern families as brought increasingly more use of one-screen sharing technology…push multimedia documents in the mobile terminal equipment (electronic equipment at the sending terminal) such as mobiles…to large-screen extending playing equipment…and the multimedia documents in mobiles…can be viewed through the large-screen extending playing equipment to get better viewing effect” [0003]. Thus, Kan teaches that it is well-known in the art to share the screen of a smart phone to the tablet, and the user operates the mobile phone of the user and shares the display interface of the mobile phone to the tablet which has a larger screen than the mobile phone so that the user can get better viewing effect [0003, 0044], and thus the first electronic device includes a mobile phone of the user, and the second electronic device includes a tablet or a computer of the same user. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prins (US 20200401362A1), Chang (US 20140317530A1), Yada (US 20130076764A1), and Kan (US 20160353162A1) in view of Berryman (US 20160071491A1).
As per Claim 4, Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1. Prins teaches wherein the adjusting, by the first electronic device, a display style of the first interface based on display screen information of a second display screen of the second electronic device to obtain an adjusted first interface [0177, 0200-0202, 0148, 0182].
However, Prins does not teach wherein the adjusting, by the first electronic device, a display style of the first interface based on display screen information of a second display screen of the second electronic device to obtain an adjusted first interface comprises: determining, by the first electronic device, a first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen; and adjusting, by the first electronic device, the first interface based on the first display style. However, Chang teaches wherein the adjusting, by the first electronic device, a display style of the first content based on a display screen information of a second display screen of the second electronic device to obtain an adjusted first content comprises: determining, by the first electronic device, a first display style of the second electronic device in landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen; and adjusting, by the first electronic device, the first content based on the first display style (second electronic device is arranged in the landscape mode, the first electronic device 100 can support the screen change according to the landscape mode arrangement of the second electronic device 200, the screen output on the first electronic device 100 can be the same as the screen displayed on the second electronic device 200, when the same screen is displayed according to screen sharing, the first electronic device 100 can control a screen layout of the display unit 140 to be different according to a screen layout of the second electronic device 200, when the second electronic device 200 is arranged in the landscape mode, the first electronic device 100 can control a ratio of the screen of the display unit 140 to be appropriate for the landscape mode and display the screen, when the second electronic device 200 is changed from the landscape mode to the portrait mode, the first electronic device 100 can control a ratio of the screen of the display unit 140 to be appropriate for the portrait mode and display the screen, as a result, the first electronic device 100 can output the screen arranged in the same direction as that of the screen output on the display device 240 of the second electronic device 200, [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins so that the adjusting, by the first electronic device, a display style of the first content based on a display screen information of a second display screen of the second electronic device to obtain an adjusted first content comprises: determining, by the first electronic device, a first display style of the second electronic device in landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen; and adjusting, by the first electronic device, the first content based on the first display style because Chang suggests that this way, the data is displayed appropriately for the landscape mode of the second display screen [0139].
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan do not teach adjusting the display style of the first interface based on the display screen information of the second display screen to obtain the adjusted first interface comprises: determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen; and adjusting the first interface based on the first display style. However, Berryman teaches video streaming the crime screen. For instance, if the phone is in portrait mode, the user views the security agent answering the call in one window and view what the camera of the phone is recording in a second window. For example, this allows the security agent to better guide the witness the crime as it happens [0105]. By rotating the phone in a landscape mode, one of the windows will take the full screen, and the other window will disappear, until the phone is returned to the portrait mode. Fig. 11a shows the screen from the caller’s view, while Fig. 11b shows the screen from the agent’s view on the agent’s phone [0106]. Berryman teaches running the primary media on the entire display when sensing a change of orientation of the portable computing device [0034]. Thus, when the agent rotates his phone in a landscape mode, then the window showing what the user is recording is adjusted to be displayed in full screen display on the agent’s phone. Thus, Berryman teaches adjusting a display style of the first interface based on display screen information of a second display screen of the second electronic device (agent’s phone) to obtain an adjusted first interface comprises: determining a first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display which is landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen; and adjusting the first interface based on the first display style (user interface implemented on a computing device having a display, [0037], [0105, 0106, 0034], Figs. 11a-c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan to include adjusting the display style of the first interface based on the display screen information of the second display screen to obtain the adjusted first interface comprises: determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen; and adjusting the first interface based on the first display style because Berryman suggests that this way, when the second display screen is in landscape display, the window can take the full screen, and thus the agent will be able to see the crime screen in full screen and will be able to better see the crime screen [0037, 0105, 0106, 0034].
As per Claim 5, Prins does not teach wherein the determining, by the first electronic device, a first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen comprises: determining, by the first electronic device, the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video. However, Chang teaches wherein the determining, by the first electronic device, a first display style of the second electronic device in landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen comprises: determining, by the first electronic device, the first display style of the second electronic device in landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video [0139]. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 4.
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan do not teach wherein the determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen comprises: determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and the landscape/portrait attribute of the electronic device collecting audio/video. However, Berryman teaches wherein the determining a first display style of the second electronic device (agent’s phone) in full screen display that is a landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen comprises: determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display that is a landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 4. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 4.
As per Claim 11, Claim 11 is similar in scope to Claim 4, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
As per Claim 12, Prins teaches wherein before the receiving and displaying, by the second electronic device (200), a first interface [0148], the method further comprises: obtaining, by the second electronic device, the display screen information of the second display screen; and sending, by the second electronic device, the display screen information of the second display screen to the first electronic device [0049-0051].
As per Claims 16-17, these claims are similar in scope to Claims 4-5 respectively, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
As per Claim 20, Claim 20 is similar in scope to Claim 11, except that Claim 20 has the additional limitations of at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium which contains computer-executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform the method of Claim 11. Prins teaches at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium which contains computer-executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform the method [0067]. Thus, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 11.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prins (US 20200401362A1), Chang (US 20140317530A1), Yada (US 20130076764A1), Kan (US 20160353162A1), and Berryman (US 20160071491A1) in view of Magi (US 20190103075A1).
As per Claim 6, Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, and Berryman are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 5.
However, Prins does not teach wherein when the second electronic device is in landscape, the determining, by the first electronic device, the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the first electronic device and the first electronic device is in portrait, rotating a display direction of the first interface clockwise by a first angle, and adjusting resolution of the first interface based on a size of the second display screen. However, Chang teaches wherein when the second electronic device is in landscape, the determining, by the first electronic device, the first display style of the second electronic device in landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the first electronic device and the first electronic device is in portrait, rotating a display direction of the first content clockwise by a first angle, and adjusting the first content based on a size of the second display screen [0139]. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 4.
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan do not teach wherein when the second electronic device is in landscape, the determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and the landscape/portrait attribute of the electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the first electronic device and the first electronic device is in portrait, rotating the display direction of the first interface clockwise by the first angle. However, Berryman teaches wherein when the second electronic device is in landscape, the determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display that is landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the first electronic device and the first electronic device is in portrait, adjusting the first interface to be displayed in landscape [0037, 0105, 0106, 0034] (Figs. 11a-c). Since Chang teaches if first electronic device is in portrait, rotating a display direction of the first content clockwise by a first angle [0139], this teaching from Berryman can be implemented into the device of Chang so that if the first electronic device is in portrait, rotating a display direction of the first interface clockwise by a first angle. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 4.
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, and Berryman do not teach adjusting resolution of the first interface based on a size and resolution of the second display screen. However, Magi teaches wherein when the second electronic device (80, Fig. 8) is in landscape, the determining the first display style of the second electronic device in landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the first electronic device and the first electronic device (10, Fig. 8) is in portrait, rotating a display direction of the first content clockwise by a first angle, and adjusting resolution of the first content based on a size and resolution of the second display screen (Fig. 8 is a diagram of the display devices 10, 80 having different display formats or resolution, processor 32 may determine that the display format of the display device 80 is landscape orientation, processor 32 may determine that the display format of the display device 10 is portrait orientation, [0059], processor 32 may determine display resolutions of the display devices 80, 10, display device 18 may have a display resolution of 1920x1080 pixels when orienting image data toward the user location 114 nearest to the long edge 115 of the display device 80, if the user location was nearest to a short edge 118 of the display device 80, then the display resolution would be 1080x1920 pixels, as such, the processor 32 may determine the display resolution of the display device 80 as 1920x1080 pixels or 1080x1920 pixels depending on the user location 114, [0060], reformat the image data 146 by resizing the image data 36 from an original resolution to the resolution of the display device 80, [0063], determines that display device 80 is in landscape orientation, then may convert the image data 36 to a widescreen format, additionally, may apply video processing to the video file to scale up or scale down the video file based on the display resolution of the display device 80, [0064], Fig. 8). Thus, this teaching from Magi can be implemented into the combination of Chang and Berryman so that it adjusts resolution of the first interface based on a size and resolution of the second display screen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, and Berryman to include adjusting resolution of the first interface based on a size and resolution of the second display screen because Magi suggests that this way, the image data is displayed at the correct resolution for the second display screen [0059-0060, 0063-0064].
As per Claim 7, Claim 7 is similar in scope to Claim 6, except that the first electronic device is in landscape. Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, and Berryman do not teach if the first electronic device is in landscape, adjusting resolution of the first interface based on a size and resolution of the second display screen. However, Magi teaches if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the first electronic device (10, Fig. 9) and the first electronic device is in landscape, adjusting resolution of the first content based on a size and resolution of the second display screen (80, Fig. 9) [0063-0064] (Fig. 9). Thus, this teaching from Magi can be implemented into the combination of Chang and Berryman so that if the first electronic device is in landscape, adjusting resolution of the first interface based on a size and resolution of the second display screen. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 6. So, Claim 7 is rejected under same rationale as Claim 6 along with this additional teaching from Magi.
As per Claim 8, Prins does not teach wherein when the second electronic device is in landscape, the determining, by the first electronic device, the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the second electronic device, adjusting resolution of the first interface based on a size of the second display screen. However, Chang teaches wherein when the second electronic device is in landscape, the determining, by the first electronic device, the first display style of the second electronic device in landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the second electronic device, adjusting the first content based on a size of the second display screen [0139]. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 4.
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan do not teach wherein when the second electronic device is in landscape, the determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and the landscape/portrait attribute of the electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the second electronic device, adjusting resolution of the first interface. However, Berryman teaches wherein when the second electronic device is in landscape, the determining the first display style of the second electronic device in full screen display that is landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the second electronic device, adjusting the first interface [0037, 0105, 0106, 0034] (Figs. 11a-c). This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 4.
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, and Berryman do not teach adjusting resolution of the first interface based on a size and resolution of the second display screen. However, Magi teaches wherein when the second electronic device (80, Fig. 8) is in landscape, the determining the first display style of the second electronic device in landscape display based on the display screen information of the second display screen and a landscape/portrait attribute of an electronic device collecting audio/video comprises: if the electronic device collecting audio/video is the second electronic device, adjusting resolution of the first content based on a size and resolution of the second display screen [0059-0060, 0063-0064] (Fig. 8). Thus, this teaching from Magi can be implemented into the combination of Chang and Berryman so that it adjusts resolution of the first interface based on a size and resolution of the second display screen. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 6.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prins (US 20200401362A1), Chang (US 20140317530A1), Yada (US 20130076764A1), and Kan (US 20160353162A1) in view of Li (US 20220398062A1), Melville (US 20090316116A1), and Park (US 20200226387A1).
Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan do not teach wherein the first interface includes a wireless screen projection button. However, Li teaches wherein the first interface includes a wireless screen projection button (screen projection sharing operation is an operation triggered by a user, an operation of clicking on a button to start screen projection sharing by the user, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan so that the first interface includes a wireless screen projection button because Li suggests that this way, the user can quickly and easily project their screen so that others can view their screen [0048].
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, and Li do not teach wherein the first interface includes a video title and a video play pause button. However, Melville teaches wherein the first interface includes a video title and a video play pause button (display play 144, pause 146 buttons for the movie, the title of the movie 150, [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, and Li so that the first interface includes a video title and a video play pause button because Melville suggests that this way, the user can quickly and easily determine the video title and can quickly and easily play or pause the video [0105].
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, Li, and Melville do not teach wherein the first interface includes an episode selection button. However, Park teaches wherein the first interface includes an episode selection button (episode selection button 532, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins, Chang, Yada, Kan, Li, and Melville so that the first interface includes an episode selection button because Park suggests that this way, the user can quickly and easily select the episode that they desire to watch [0051].
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prins (US 20200401362A1), Chang (US 20140317530A1), Yada (US 20130076764A1), and Kan (US 20160353162A1) in view of Ellis (US 20070157266A1).
Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1. Prins teaches after a screen projection connection between the first electronic device and the second electronic device is successful, the first electronic device or the second electronic device is to collect audio/video [0201].
However, Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan do not teach after the screen projection connection is successful, receiving a user selection selecting one of the first electronic device or the second electronic device to collect audio/video. However, Ellis teaches after a screen projection connection between the first electronic device and the second electronic device is successful, receiving a user selection selecting one of the first electronic device or the second electronic device to collect audio/video (user equipment devices that are part of a group may be configured to share content, such as, for example, pictures, and video clips, [0131], enable the added user equipment devices to share content with the other user equipment devices in the group, [0139], video capture device selection drop down menu 1402 to allow the user to select a video capture device coupled to any of the user equipment devices in the group, [0184]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prins, Chang, Yada, and Kan to include after the screen projection connection is successful, receiving a user selection selecting one of the first electronic device or the second electronic device to collect audio/video because Ellis suggests that the user may desire one of the electronic devices to collect audio/video, and this way, the user can quickly and easily select the desired electronic device [0184].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights