DETAILED ACTION
The Preliminary Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/01/2024 have been considered. The Applicant has cancelled claim 1 and added new claims 2-21. Claims 2-21 as amended are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 11-13 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 26, 40 and 43-44 of U.S. Patent No. 9,075,561 (hereinafter “Patent 1”) in view of Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the instant application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of Patent 1 in view of Hosein.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of Patent 1. For example, please see table below which shows that the bolded portions of claim 3 (including claim 1) of Patent 1 correspond to the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application, except where italicized:
Instant Application
18/412,265
Patent 1
9,075,561
2. A method for managing collaboration, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes a display generation component:
while the display generation component is displaying content in a first user interface associated with an application, receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content;
in response to receiving the one or more inputs:
causing a second electronic device to display the first portion of the content in a second user interface on the second electronic device, while continuing to display the first user interface on the first electronic device, the first portion of the content being displayed in a respective area of the second user interface that did not include the first portion of the content before the one or more inputs were received;
while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an instruction from the second electronic device to modify the first portion of the content; and
in response to receiving the instruction, displaying modified content in the first region of the first user interface.
1. A method for sharing graphical data, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes one or more input components, a processor, and memory storing instructions for execution by the processor:
receiving first user instructions with a first user interface of the first electronic device;
generating a first input command based on the received first user instructions with a first graphics application on the first electronic device, the first input command including a command selected from a predefined set of commands;
transmitting the first input command from the first electronic device to a second electronic device for processing on the second electronic device so that the transmitted first input command is processed with a second graphics application on the second electronic device to generate second pixel array data, wherein the first graphics application and the second graphics application are distinct applications and the first graphics application and the second graphics application are both configured to process the predefined set of commands; and
processing the first input command with the first graphics application on the first electronic device to generate first pixel array data in a first canvas of the first electronic device.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: processing the first input command with the second graphics application on the second electronic device to generate the second pixel array data in a second canvas of the second electronic device.
Patent 1 does not explicitly teach the italicized limitations of claim 2 of the instant application above. Similar to the instant application and Patent 1, Hosein also teaches a first electronic device causing a second electronic device to display the same content that is displayed on the first electronic device (content on the first device 102 is sent to the second device 106 so that the content that is currently displayed on the first device is also displayed on the second device) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0028] and [0035]). In addition, Hosein teaches receiving one or more inputs at the first electronic device selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content (step 204 in the flowchart of Figure 2 shows that the user can select a content displayed on the first device to send to a second device) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0025] and [0028]-[0029]); causing the second electronic device to display the first portion of content in a respective area of the second user interface that did not include the first portion of the content before the one or more inputs were received (the user selected content is sent to the second device 106 so that the selected content that is currently displayed on the first device is also displayed on the second device) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0028] and [0035]); while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an instruction from the second electronic device to modify the first portion of the content (the user can interact with the content received and displayed on the second device, i.e. navigate through the content and then enter an end command) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0022] and [0026]); and in response to receiving the instruction, displaying modified content in the first region of the first user interface (in response to the end command, the first device displays the content in the same state as it was displayed on the second device) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0022] and [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method taught by Patent 1 to include the recited features taught by Hosein. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a seamless “round-trip” content viewing experience for the user on two different devices (Hosein: paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0022]).
Claims 11-12 of the instant application: please see Hosein at paragraphs [0016]-[0017], [0022] and [0027]-[0028].
Claims 13 and 21 of the instant application recite a device and a computer-readable storage medium that correspond to the method embodiment recited in claim 2 of the instant application. Similar to the mapping of claim 2 of the instant application to claim 3 (including claim 1) of Patent 1, claims 13 and 21 of the instant application are mapped to claim 40 (including claim 26) and claim 44 (including claim 43) of Patent 1 respectively.
Claims 3-7 and 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 26, 40 and 43-44 of U.S. Patent No. 9,075,561 (hereinafter “Patent 1”) in view of Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”), as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”.
Claims 3 and 14 of the instant application: The combination of Patent 1 and Hosein fails to explicitly teach while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an input to alter a size of the first region; and in response to receiving the input: resizing the first region to a second region; and causing the second electronic device to display, in the second user interface, content contained within the second region. Similar to the combination of Patent 1 and Hosein, Ahmed also teaches a display generation component that is displaying content in a first user interface (the primary display shown in Figure 3 displays content such as a triangle) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). In addition, Ahmed teaches while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an input to alter a size of the first region (user input defining an area to zoom) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007] and [0033]); and in response to receiving the input: resizing the first region to a second region (zooming the defined area) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]); and causing the second electronic device to display, in the second user interface, content contained within the second region (the zoomed area is displayed on the secondary display) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the selection of the first region of the first user interface that includes the first portion of content to be displayed in a second user interface on the second electronic device taught by the combination of Patent 1 and Hosein to further include Ahmed’s teaching of allowing the user to alter a size of the content displayed on the first display device and displaying the content with the altered size on the second display device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a display-based zoom for providing a user with the ability to view an accurate zoom of a portion of the content on one display device while being able to view the entire content on another display device (Ahmed: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Claims 4-7 and 15-18 of the instant application: please see Ahmed at paragraphs [0033], [0040], [0042] and Figures 3-4.
Claims 8-10 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 26, 40 and 43-44 of U.S. Patent No. 9,075,561 (hereinafter “Patent 1”) in view of Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”), as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Ho et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0096344 (hereinafter “Ho”).
Claims 8 and 19 of the instant application: The combination of Patent 1 and Hosein fails to explicitly teach wherein receiving the one or more inputs selecting the first region of the user interface includes receiving a first input defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content. Similar to the combination of Patent 1 and Hosein, Ho also teaches a user interface that displays content (Ho: Figure 2). In addition, Ho teaches receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first interface by defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content (as shown in Figure 2 for example, the user can define an outline 212 around a first portion of the content 211) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). Selecting content by defining an outline around the content is well known to one of ordinary skill in the computer arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the user input selecting a first region of the user interface taught by the combination of Patent 1 and Hosein to include Ho’s well-known teaching of selection of a first region of the user interface by defining an outline surrounding a first portion of content in the first region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide predictable results such as giving users precise control over content selection and allowing the user to visually distinguish between selected and non-selected content.
Claims 9-10 and 20 of the instant application: please see Ho at paragraph [0052].
Claims 2, 11-13 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,101,846 (hereinafter “Patent 2”) in view of Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the instant application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of Patent 2 in view of Hosein.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of Patent 1. For example, please see table below which shows that the bolded portions of claim 1 of Patent 2 correspond to the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application, except where italicized:
Instant Application
18/412,265
Patent 2
10,101,846
2. A method for managing collaboration, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes a display generation component:
while the display generation component is displaying content in a first user interface associated with an application, receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content;
in response to receiving the one or more inputs:
causing a second electronic device to display the first portion of the content in a second user interface on the second electronic device, while continuing to display the first user interface on the first electronic device, the first portion of the content being displayed in a respective area of the second user interface that did not include the first portion of the content before the one or more inputs were received;
while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an instruction from the second electronic device to modify the first portion of the content; and
in response to receiving the instruction, displaying modified content in the first region of the first user interface.
1. A method, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes one or more input components configured to detect pressure of contacts with a touch-sensitive surface, a first processor, and memory storing instructions for execution by the first processor:
detecting a contact on the touch-sensitive surface; and,
in response to detecting the contact on the touch-sensitive surface:
determining a pressure of the contact on the touch-sensitive surface;
generating a first input command based on the pressure of the contact on the touch-sensitive surface, wherein the first input command includes a command selected from a predefined set of commands;
processing the first input command with a first set of instructions on the first electronic device to update a display of the first electronic device; and
transmitting the first input command from the first electronic device to a second electronic device, that is distinct from the first electronic device and includes a display, a second processor distinct from the first processor and memory storing instructions for execution by the second processor, for processing on the second electronic device so that the transmitted first input command is processed with a second set of instructions on the second electronic device to update the display of the second electronic device, wherein the first set of instructions is distinct from the second set of instructions;
wherein
the update to the display of the second electronic device corresponds to the update to the display of the first electronic device; and
the update to the display of the second electronic device changes graphical information on the display of the second electronic device in accordance with the pressure of the contact on the touch sensitive surface, and the update to the first electronic device changes graphical information on the display of the first electronic device in accordance with the pressure of the contact on the touch sensitive surface.
Patent 2 does not explicitly teach the italicized limitations of claim 2 of the instant application above. Similar to the instant application and Patent 2, Hosein also teaches a first electronic device causing a second electronic device to display the same content that is displayed on the first electronic device (content on the first device 102 is sent to the second device 106 so that the content that is currently displayed on the first device is also displayed on the second device) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0028] and [0035]). In addition, Hosein teaches receiving one or more inputs at the first electronic device selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content (step 204 in the flowchart of Figure 2 shows that the user can select a content displayed on the first device to send to a second device) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0025] and [0028]-[0029]); causing the second electronic device to display the first portion of content in a respective area of the second user interface that did not include the first portion of the content before the one or more inputs were received (the user selected content is sent to the second device 106 so that the selected content that is currently displayed on the first device is also displayed on the second device) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0028] and [0035]); while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an instruction from the second electronic device to modify the first portion of the content (the user can interact with the content received and displayed on the second device, i.e. navigate through the content and then enter an end command) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0022] and [0026]); and in response to receiving the instruction, displaying modified content in the first region of the first user interface (in response to the end command, the first device displays the content in the same state as it was displayed on the second device) (Hosein: paragraphs [0007], [0022] and [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method taught by Patent 2 to include the recited features taught by Hosein. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a seamless “round-trip” content viewing experience for the user on two different devices (Hosein: paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0022]).
Claims 11-12 of the instant application: please see Hosein at paragraphs [0016]-[0017], [0022] and [0027]-[0028].
Claims 13 and 21 of the instant application recite a device and a computer-readable storage medium that correspond to the method embodiment recited in claim 2 of the instant application. Similar to the mapping of claim 2 of the instant application to claim 1 of Patent 2, claims 13 and 21 of the instant application are mapped to claim 13 and claim 24 of Patent 2 respectively.
Claims 3-7 and 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 24 of U.S. Patent 10,101,846 (hereinafter “Patent 2”) in view of Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”), as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”).
Claims 3 and 14 of the instant application: The combination of Patent 2 and Hosein fails to explicitly teach while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an input to alter a size of the first region; and in response to receiving the input: resizing the first region to a second region; and causing the second electronic device to display, in the second user interface, content contained within the second region. Similar to the combination of Patent 2 and Hosein, Ahmed also teaches a display generation component that is displaying content in a first user interface (the primary display shown in Figure 3 displays content such as a triangle) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). In addition, Ahmed teaches while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an input to alter a size of the first region (user input defining an area to zoom) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007] and [0033]); and in response to receiving the input: resizing the first region to a second region (zooming the defined area) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]); and causing the second electronic device to display, in the second user interface, content contained within the second region (the zoomed area is displayed on the secondary display) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the selection of the first region of the first user interface that includes the first portion of content to be displayed in a second user interface on the second electronic device taught by the combination of Patent 2 and Hosein to further include Ahmed’s teaching of allowing the user to alter a size of the content displayed on the first display device and displaying the content with the altered size on the second display device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a display-based zoom for providing a user with the ability to view an accurate zoom of a portion of the content on one display device while being able to view the entire content on another display device (Ahmed: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Claims 4-7 and 15-18 of the instant application: please see Ahmed at paragraphs [0033], [0040], [0042] and Figures 3-4.
Claims 8-10 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,101,846 (hereinafter “Patent 2”) in view of Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”), as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Ho et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0096344 (hereinafter “Ho”).
Claims 8 and 19 of the instant application: The combination of Patent 2 and Hosein fails to explicitly teach wherein receiving the one or more inputs selecting the first region of the user interface includes receiving a first input defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content. Similar to the combination of Patent 2 and Hosein, Ho also teaches a user interface that displays content (Ho: Figure 2). In addition, Ho teaches receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first interface by defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content (as shown in Figure 2 for example, the user can define an outline 212 around a first portion of the content 211) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). Selecting content by defining an outline around the content is well known to one of ordinary skill in the computer arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the user input selecting a first region of the user interface taught by the combination of Patent 2 and Hosein to include Ho’s well-known teaching of selection of a first region of the user interface by defining an outline surrounding a first portion of content in the first region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide predictable results such as giving users precise control over content selection and allowing the user to visually distinguish between selected and non-selected content.
Claims 9-10 and 20 of the instant application: please see Ho at paragraph [0052].
Claims 2-9 and 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 11, 18, 21 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,269,475 (hereinafter “Patent 3”) in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the instant application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of Patent 3 in view of Ahmed.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of Patent 3. For example, please see table below which shows that the bolded portions of claim 7 (including claim 1) of Patent 3 correspond to the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application, except where italicized:
Instant Application
18/412,265
Patent 3
11,269,475
2. A method for managing collaboration, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes a display generation component:
while the display generation component is displaying content in a first user interface associated with an application, receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content;
in response to receiving the one or more inputs:
causing a second electronic device to display the first portion of the content in a second user interface on the second electronic device, while continuing to display the first user interface on the first electronic device, the first portion of the content being displayed in a respective area of the second user interface that did not include the first portion of the content before the one or more inputs were received;
while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an instruction from the second electronic device to modify the first portion of the content; and
in response to receiving the instruction, displaying modified content in the first region of the first user interface.
1. A method, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes a touch-sensitive display:
while the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device is operating in a first display state, receiving, from a second electronic device that is currently displaying content associated with an application, an instruction to display the content associated with the application on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device; and
in response to receiving the instruction:
ceasing to operate the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device in the first display state, including ceasing to display a user interface associated with the first display state on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device;
displaying a user interface for the application on substantially all of the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device;
displaying the content within the user interface for the application on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device; and
displaying a first set of tools for modifying the content displayed within the user interface for the application on the first electronic device that are different than a second set of tools for modifying the content displayed within the application on the second electronic device;
detecting an input that modifies an appearance of the content with the first set of tools while it is displayed on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device; and
in response to detecting the input:
displaying the content with the modified appearance on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device; and
automatically, sending, to the second electronic device, information that allows the second electronic device to display the content with the modified appearance.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the instruction to display the content associated with the application on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device is received based on user input received at the second electronic device, the user input requesting to share the content with the first electronic device.
Patent 3 does not explicitly teach that the input selecting the content is an input selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content. Similar to the instant application and Patent 3, Ahmed also teaches a first electronic device that receives one or more inputs selecting displayed content (Figures 3 and 4 show user selected content displayed on a primary display device) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). In addition, Ahmed also teaches that the input selects a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content (for example, Figure 4 shows that the user has selected the portion of content displayed in the first region, i.e. the rectangular window, of the primary display device) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the selection of content taught by Patent 3 to include Ahmed’s teaching of selecting only a portion of content displayed in a first region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a display-based zoom for providing a user with the ability to view an accurate zoom of a portion of the content on one display device while being able to view the entire content on another display device (Ahmed: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Claims 13 and 21 of the instant application recite a device and a computer-readable storage medium that correspond to the method embodiment recited in claim 2 of the instant application. Similar to the mapping of claim 2 of the instant application to claim 7 (including claim 1) of Patent 3, claims 13 and 21 of the instant application are mapped to claim 28 (including claim 21) and claim 18 (including claim 11) of Patent 3 respectively.
Claims 3-9, 11-12 and 14-20 of the instant application: please see Ahmed at paragraphs [0007], [0028], [0033], [0040], [0042] and Figures 3-4.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 11, 18, 21 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,269,475 (hereinafter “Patent 3”) in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”), as applied to claims 2 and 8 above, and further in view of Ho et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0096344 (hereinafter “Ho”).
The combination of Patent 3 and Ahmed fails to explicitly teach that the first input comprises selection of a menu option on the first user interface. Similar to the combination of Patent 3 and Ahmed, Ho also teaches a first input defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content (as shown in Figure 2 for example, the user can define an outline 212 around a first portion of the content 211) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). In addition, Ho teaches wherein the first input comprises selection of a menu option on the first user interface (the user can select magnifying glass icon 213 on the menu for the selected portion of the content) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). User selection of menu options is notoriously well-known in the computer arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first input taught by the combination of Patent 3 and Ahmed to further include Ho’s well-known teaching of selection of a menu option. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide the predictable results of giving users the ability to select content via a variety of well-known input methods, such as selection of a menu option.
Claims 2-9 and 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10, 16, 19 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,625,136 (hereinafter “Patent 4”) in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the instant application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of Patent 4 in view of Ahmed.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of Patent 4. For example, please see table below which shows that the bolded portions of claim 6 (including claim 1) of Patent 4 correspond to the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application, except where italicized:
Instant Application
18/412,265
Patent 4
11,625,136
2. A method for managing collaboration, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes a display generation component:
while the display generation component is displaying content in a first user interface associated with an application, receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content;
in response to receiving the one or more inputs:
causing a second electronic device to display the first portion of the content in a second user interface on the second electronic device, while continuing to display the first user interface on the first electronic device, the first portion of the content being displayed in a respective area of the second user interface that did not include the first portion of the content before the one or more inputs were received;
while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an instruction from the second electronic device to modify the first portion of the content; and
in response to receiving the instruction, displaying modified content in the first region of the first user interface.
1. A method, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes a touch-sensitive display:
while the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device is operating in a first display state, receiving, from a second electronic device that is currently displaying content associated with an application, an instruction to display a user interface associated with the application on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device; and
in response to receiving the instruction:
ceasing to operate the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device in the first display state, including ceasing to display a user interface associated with the first display state on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device;
displaying the user interface associated with the application on substantially all of the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device; and
displaying a first set of tools for modifying the content displayed within the user interface associated with the application on the first electronic device, wherein a second set of tools for modifying the content displayed within the application on the second electronic device is different than the first set of tools for modifying the content displayed within the user interface associated with the application on the first electronic device;
detecting an input that modifies an appearance of the content with the first set of tools while it is displayed on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device; and
in response to detecting the input, displaying the content with the modified appearance on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device;
detecting another input at a user interface element in the user interface associated with the application on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device; and
in response to detecting the other input, sending, to the second electronic device, information that allows the second electronic device to display the content with the modified appearance.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the instruction to display the content associated with the application on the touch-sensitive display of the first electronic device is received based on user input received at the second electronic device, the user input requesting to share the content with the first electronic device.
Patent 4 does not explicitly teach that the input selecting the content is an input selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content. Similar to the instant application and Patent 4, Ahmed also teaches a first electronic device that receives one or more inputs selecting displayed content (Figures 3 and 4 show user selected content displayed on primary display device) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). In addition, Ahmed teaches that the input selects a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content (for example, Figure 4 shows that the user has selected the portion of content displayed in the first region, i.e. the rectangular window, of the primary display device) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the selection of content taught by Patent 4 to include Ahmed’s teaching of selecting only a portion of content displayed in a first region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a display-based zoom for providing a user with the ability to view an accurate zoom of a portion of the content on one display device while being able to view the entire content on another display device (Ahmed: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Claims 13 and 21 of the instant application recites a device and a computer-readable storage medium that corresponds to the method embodiment recited in claim 2 of the instant application. Similar to the mapping of claim 2 of the instant application to claim 6 (including claim 1) of Patent 4, claims 13 and 21 of the instant application are mapped to claim 25 (including claim 19) and claim 16 (including claim 10) of Patent 4 respectively.
Claims 3-9, 11-12 and 14-20 of the instant application: please see Ahmed at paragraphs [0007], [0028], [0033], [0040], [0042] and Figures 3-4.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10, 16, 19 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,625,136 (hereinafter “Patent 4”) in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”), as applied to claims 2 and 8 above, and further in view of Ho et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0096344 (hereinafter “Ho”).
The combination of Patent 4 and Ahmed fails to explicitly teach that the first input comprises selection of a menu option on the first user interface. Similar to the combination of Patent 4 and Ahmed, Ho also teaches a first input defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content (as shown in Figure 2 for example, the user can define an outline 212 around a first portion of the content 211) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). In addition, Ho teaches wherein the first input comprises selection of a menu option on the first user interface (the user can select magnifying glass icon 213 on the menu for the selected portion of the content) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). User selection of menu options is notoriously well-known in the computer arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first input taught by the combination of Patent 4 and Ahmed to further include Ho’s well-known teaching of selection of a menu option. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide the predictable results of giving users the ability to select content via a variety of well-known input methods, such as selection of a menu option.
Claims 2-9 and 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13, 21, 25 and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,010 (hereinafter “Patent 5”) in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the instant application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of Patent 5 in view of Ahmed.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of Patent 5. For example, please see table below which shows that the bolded portions of claim 9 (including claim 1) of Patent 5 correspond to the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application, except where italicized:
Instant Application
18/412,265
Patent 4
11,875,010
2. A method for managing collaboration, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes a display generation component:
while the display generation component is displaying content in a first user interface associated with an application, receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content;
in response to receiving the one or more inputs:
causing a second electronic device to display the first portion of the content in a second user interface on the second electronic device, while continuing to display the first user interface on the first electronic device, the first portion of the content being displayed in a respective area of the second user interface that did not include the first portion of the content before the one or more inputs were received;
while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an instruction from the second electronic device to modify the first portion of the content; and
in response to receiving the instruction, displaying modified content in the first region of the first user interface.
1. A method, comprising:
at a first electronic device that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices:
while the display generation component is operating in a first display state, receiving, from a second electronic device that is currently displaying content associated with an application, an instruction to display the content associated with the application using the display generation component; and
in response to receiving the instruction: ceasing to operate the display generation component in the first display state, including ceasing to display a user interface associated with the first display state on the display generation component;
displaying a user interface for the application on the display generation component;
displaying the content within the user interface for the application on the display generation component; and
displaying, using the display generation component, a first set of tools for modifying the content displayed within the user interface for the application that are different than a second set of tools for modifying the content displayed within the application on the second electronic device;
detecting an input, using the one or more input devices, that modifies an appearance of the content with the first set of tools while it is displayed using the display generation component; and
in response to detecting the input:
displaying the content with the modified appearance using the display generation component; and
automatically, sending, to the second electronic device, information that allows the second electronic device to display the content with the modified appearance.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the instruction to display the content associated with the application on the display generation component is received based on user input received at the second electronic device, the user input requesting to share the content with the first electronic device.
Patent 5 does not explicitly teach that the input selecting the content is an input selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content. Similar to the instant application and Patent 5, Ahmed also teaches a first electronic device that receives one or more inputs selecting displayed content (Figures 3 and 4 show user selected content displayed on the primary display device) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). In addition, Ahmed teaches that the input selects a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content (for example, Figure 4 shows that the user has selected the portion of content displayed in the first region, i.e. the rectangular window, of the primary display device) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the selection of content taught by Patent 5 to include Ahmed’s teaching of selecting only a portion of content displayed in a first region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a display-based zoom for providing a user with the ability to view an accurate zoom of a portion of the content on one display device while being able to view the entire content on another display device (Ahmed: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Claims 13 and 21 of the instant application recite a device and a computer-readable storage medium that corresponds to the method embodiment recited in claim 2 of the instant application. Similar to the mapping of claim 2 of the instant application to claim 9 (including claim 1) of Patent 4, claims 13 and 21 of the instant application are mapped to claim 33 (including claim 25) and claim 21 (including claim 13) of Patent 5 respectively.
Claims 3-9, 11-12 and 14-20 of the instant application: please see Ahmed at paragraphs [0007], [0028], [0033], [0040], [0042] and Figures 3-4.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13, 21, 25 and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,010 (hereinafter Patent 5) in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”), as applied to claims 2 and 8 above, and further in view of Ho et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0096344 (hereinafter “Ho”).
The combination of Patent 5 and Ahmed fails to explicitly teach that the first input comprises selection of a menu option on the first user interface. Similar to the combination of Patent 5 and Ahmed, Ho also teaches a first input defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content (as shown in Figure 2 for example, the user can define an outline 212 around a first portion of the content 211) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). In addition, Ho teaches wherein the first input comprises selection of a menu option on the first user interface (the user can select magnifying glass icon 213 on the menu for the selected portion of the content) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). User selection of menu options is notoriously well-known in the computer arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first input taught by the combination of Patent 5 and Ahmed to further include Ho’s well-known teaching of selection of a menu option. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide the predictable results of giving users the ability to select content via a variety of well-known input methods, such as selection of a menu option.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In summary, claim 21 recites a “computer-readable storage medium” storing one or more programs comprising instructions that perform various functions. The Specification does not expressly exclude nonstatutory subject matter (e.g. signal, carrier wave, etc.). Without explicitly reciting that the “computer-readable storage medium” is non-transitory, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer-readable storage medium” encompasses nonstatutory subject matter that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, claim 21 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of the Applicant amending claim 7 to place it within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 2, 11-13 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”).
Referring to claim 2, Hosein teaches a method for managing collaboration, comprising:
at a first electronic device that includes a display generation component (first device 102 shown in Figure 1) (paragraph [0016]):
while the display generation component is displaying content in a first user interface associated with an application, receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first user interface that includes a first portion of the content (Figure 3a shows that the first device 102 can display content in an application; step 204 in the flowchart of Figure 2 shows that the user can select a content displayed on the first device to send to a second device) (paragraphs [0007], [0025] and [0028]-[0029]);
in response to receiving one or more inputs:
causing a second electronic device to display the first portion of the content in a second user interface on the second electronic device, while continuing to display the first user interface on the first electronic device, the first portion of the content being displayed in a respective area of the second user interface that did not include the first portion of the content before the one or more inputs were received (the user selected content is sent to the second device 106 so that the selected content that is currently displayed on the first device is also displayed on the second device) (paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0028] and [0035]);
while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an instruction from the second electronic device to modify the first portion of the content (the user can interact with the content received and displayed on the second device, i.e. navigate through the content and then enter an end command) (paragraphs [0007], [0022] and [0026]); and
in response to receiving the instruction, displaying modified content in the first region of the first user interface (in response to the end command, the first device displays the content in the same state as it was displayed on the second device) (paragraphs [0007], [0022] and [0026]).
Referring to claim 11, Hosein teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first electronic device is of a first type, and the second electronic device is of a second type different from the first type (the first device 102 and second device 106 shown in Figure 1 may be a mobile device, PC, laptop computer, TV, etc.) (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
Referring to claim 12, Hosein teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the second electronic device is configured to display only the content from the first portion without concurrently displaying other content from the first electronic device (the user can select a webpage or a portion of content displayed on the first device to send to the second device for display; for example, the Ferrari card shown in in Figure 3a-3b can be selected and sent to the second device for display; other content displayed on the first device, such as the menu options shown in Figure 3a are not sent to the second device) (paragraphs [0022] and [0027]-[0028]).
Claim 13 recites a first electronic device embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claim 2. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 21 recites a computer-readable storage medium embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claim 2. Therefore, the limitations of claim 21 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claim 2.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-7 and 14-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”), as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0050090 (hereinafter “Ahmed”).
Referring to claim 3 and claim 14, Hosein teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 2 and 13 above. However, Hosein fails to explicitly teach while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an input to alter a size of the first region; and in response to receiving the input: resizing the first region to a second region; and causing the second electronic device to display, in the second user interface, content contained within the second region. Similar to Hosein, Ahmed also teaches a display generation component that is displaying content in a first user interface (the primary display shown in Figure 3 displays content such as a triangle) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). In addition, Ahmed teaches while the display generation component is displaying the content in the first user interface, receiving an input to alter a size of the first region (user input defining an area to zoom) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007] and [0033]); and in response to receiving the input: resizing the first region to a second region (zooming the defined area) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]); and causing the second electronic device to display, in the second user interface, content contained within the second region (the zoomed area is displayed on the secondary display) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0007], [0033] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hosein’s selection of the first region of the first user interface that includes the first portion of content to be displayed in a second user interface on the second electronic device to further include Ahmed’s teaching of allowing the user to alter a size of the content displayed on the first display device and displaying the content with the altered size on the second display device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a display-based zoom for providing a user with the ability to view an accurate zoom of a portion of the content on one display device while being able to view the entire content on another display device (Ahmed: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Referring to claim 4 and claim 15, Hosein, as modified by Ahmed, teaches wherein receiving the input to alter the size of the first region includes:
receiving an input that starts from a first position within the first region and ends at a second position outside the first region (selected area shown in Figure 4 of Ahmed) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0033] and [0040]).
Referring to claim 5 and claim 16, Hosein, as modified by Ahmed, teaches wherein the second region includes the first region and the second position (the zoomed image shown in Figure 4 of Ahmed includes the selected area) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0033] and [0040]).
Referring to claim 6 and claim 17, Hosein, as modified by Ahmed, teaches wherein the second region is determined according to the second position (the zoomed image shown in Figure 4 of Ahmed includes the selected area which is based on the coordinates of the drag operation) (Ahmed: paragraphs [0033] and [0040]).
Referring to claim 7 and claim 18, Hosein, as modified by Ahmed, teaches wherein receiving the input to alter the size of the first region includes receiving selection of a point of the first region followed by a drag operation that drags the point to a different position on the first user interface (the rectangular selected area shown in Figure 4 of Ahmed is defined by a user drag operation) (Ahmed: paragraph [0033]).
Claims 8-10 and 19-20 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hosein et. al. U.S. Publication 2012/0188147 (hereinafter “Hosein”), as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Ho et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0096344 (hereinafter “Ho”).
Referring to claim 8 and claim 19, Hosein teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 2 and 13 above. However, Hosein fails to explicitly teach wherein receiving the one or more inputs selecting the first region of the user interface includes receiving a first input defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content. Similar to Hosein, Ho also teaches a user interface that displays content (Ho: Figure 2). In addition, Ho teaches receiving one or more inputs selecting a first region of the first interface by defining an outline surrounding the first portion of the content (as shown in Figure 2 for example, the user can define an outline 212 around a first portion of the content 211) (Ho: paragraph [0052]). Selecting content by defining an outline around the content is well known to one of ordinary skill in the computer arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the user input selecting a first region of the user interface taught by Hosein to include Ho’s well-known teaching of selection of a first region of the user interface by defining an outline surrounding a first portion of content in the first region. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide predictable results such as giving users precise control over content selection and allowing the user to visually distinguish between selected and non-selected content.
Referring to claim 9 and claim 20, Hosein, as modified by Ho, teaches wherein the first input comprises tracing an outline (using finger touch, the user can outline a portion of the content, i.e. outline 212 shown in Figure 2) (Ho: paragraph [0052]).
Referring to claim 10, Hosein, as modified by Ho, teaches wherein the first input comprises selection of a menu option on the first user interface (the user can select magnifying glass icon 213 on the menu for the selected portion of the content) (Ho: paragraph [0052]).
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. The documents cited therein are:
US2011/0045816 to Wang et al., US2010/0085318 to Lee et al., US2011/0191724 to Kim et al., US2013/0033435 to Raveendran et al. and EP1109139 to Kanesaka et al. teach similar methods of sending a portion of content displayed on a first device to a second device for display; and
US2011/0225544 to Demar et al. teaches a similar method of causing a second device to display content from a first device that has been resized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4058. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights