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 filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach detecting, by the source end device, a call event and displaying a call interface corresponding to the call event in the first window of the target device; upon detecting that the object approaches the source end device, stop displaying, by the source end device, the call interface in the first window of the target device, and triggering, by the source end device, the target device to display a preset blocking picture in the first window to block a part or all of the call interface.
The Office respectfully disagrees and submits that the previously cited Lee et al. teach detecting, by the source end device, a call event and displaying a call interface corresponding to the call event in the first window of the target device (Lee et al., Fig. 9B, interface 920 indicating phone call information may be displayed), and triggering, by the source end device, the target device to display a preset blocking picture in the first window (Fig. 9A, a notification 900 displaying a preset blocking picture: “Receiving call… Privacy information protected” is displayed unless an icon 800 is pressed. Said preset blocking picture (“Receiving call… Privacy information protected”) blocks privacy information that would otherwise be available, such as the information in message 920 of Fig. 9B), to block a part or all of the call interface (Lee et al., Figs. 7C and 9A, 900, paragraph 108, “According to various embodiments of the disclosure, the notification 720 associated with the occurring event may include a mirroring screen for the screen displayed (or to be displayed) on the display device 160”, in other words, the mirrored screen may be modified when an incoming call is detected).
Furthermore, the previously cited Strutt discloses wherein upon detecting that an object approaches the source end device, stopping, by the source end device, displaying a call interface corresponding to the call event (Strutt, paragraph 2, “The main function of such a proximity sensor is to detect when the user has positioned the device close to the ear during an ongoing phone call, in which case the touchscreen of the mobile device is disabled or switched off to prevent false touch events due to contact of the ear or other body part of the user with the screen of the mobile device. Since the touch screen is not normally used while the user has placed a call and has positioned the device close to their head or next to their ear, the touch screen controller can either be switched off or may enter a low-power mode to save power. Additionally, the screen lighting of the device is also normally switched off to save power”)
As per claim 1, Applicant further argues that the proffered motivation to combine Strutt with Manchinasetti, Liu, Lee, and Ogita is not achieved and is insufficient.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Strutt discloses to detect when the user has positioned the device close to the ear during an ongoing phone call, in which case the touchscreen of the mobile device is disabled or switched off to prevent false touch events due to contact of the ear or other body part of the user with the screen of the mobile device. Since the touch screen is not normally used while the user has placed a call and has positioned the device close to their head or next to their ear, the touch screen controller can either be switched off or may enter a low-power mode to save power. Additionally, the screen lighting of the device is also normally switched off to save power (paragraph 2). The Office respectfully submits that Strutt explicitly discloses wherein disabling the screen reduces power consumption in the source device. Furthermore, since the screens are mirrored (Manchinasetti, Fig. 9B; Lee et al., Figs. 7C and 9A, 900), Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. suggest wherein a disabled screen in the source device may be mirrored as disabled onto the target device.
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.
Claims 1, 6-10, 21 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0199715 to Manchinasetti et al.; in view of US 2021/0099564 to Lee et al.; in view of US 2015/0302621 to Liu et al.; in view of US 2011/0063490 to Ogita; in view of US 2021/0303099 to Strutt et al..
As per claim 1, Manchinasetti et al. teach a method, comprising:
projecting, by a source end device (Fig. 9A, 600) a first display interface of a first application (Fig. 9A, 1910) onto a first window of a target device (Fig. 9A, Ara, 1920) for display and synchronously displaying, by the source end device, display content in the first window (Fig. 9A);
projecting, by the source end device, a second display interface of a second application (Fig. 9B, 1922) onto a second window of the target device (Fig. 9B, Arb) for display and continuing to synchronously display, by the source end device, the display content in the first window (paragraphs 243 and 251, “the controller 170 of the image display apparatus 100 may transmit a request for transmission of the image list 1750 related to the mirroring image to the mobile terminal 600 according to the location of the pointer 205. Then, the controller 170 may receive the image list 1750 related to the mirroring image from the mobile terminal 600 … the controller 170 of the image display apparatus 100 may transmit a request for transmission of the second home screen window related to the mirroring image to the mobile terminal 600 according to the location of the pointer 205. Then, the controller 170 may receive the second home screen window related to the mirroring image from the mobile terminal 600”).
Manchinasetti et al. do not teach detecting, by the source end device, a call event and displaying a call interface corresponding to the call event in the first window of the target device, detecting, by the source end device, the call event, and triggering, by the source end device, the target device to display a preset blocking picture in the first window, to block a part or all of the call interface.
Lee et al. teach detecting, by the source end device, a call event and displaying a call interface corresponding to the call event in the first window of the target device (Lee et al., Fig. 9B, interface 920 indicating phone call information may be displayed), and triggering, by the source end device, the target device to display a preset blocking picture in the first window (Fig. 9A, a notification 900 displaying a preset blocking picture: “Receiving call… Privacy information protected” is displayed unless an icon 800 is pressed. Said preset blocking picture (“Receiving call… Privacy information protected”) blocks privacy information that would otherwise be available, such as the information in message 920 of Fig. 9B), to block a part or all of the call interface (Lee et al., Figs. 7C and 9A, 900, paragraph 108, “According to various embodiments of the disclosure, the notification 720 associated with the occurring event may include a mirroring screen for the screen displayed (or to be displayed) on the display device 160”, in other words, the mirrored screen may be modified when an incoming call is detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Manchinasetti et al., by displaying a call interface corresponding to a call event in the first window of the target device, detecting, by the source end device, a call event, and triggering, by the source end device, the target device to display a preset blocking picture in the first window, to block a part or all of the call interface, such as taught by Lee et al., for the purpose of providing privacy.
Manchinasetti and Lee et al. do not necessarily teach wherein the preset blocking picture is displayed upon detecting, by the source end device, an event triggering protection of sensitive information within an interface, after having displayed said interface on the target device.
Liu et al teach wherein the preset blocking picture is displayed upon detecting, by the source end device, an event triggering protection of sensitive information within an interface, after having displayed said interface on the target device (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, steps 410/420, the protection of sensitive information is triggered by detection of user entering input into a field, said sensitive information is protected by displaying a replacement image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Manchinasetti and Lee et al., so that the preset blocking picture is displayed upon detecting, by the source end device, an event triggering protection of sensitive information within an interface, after having displayed said interface on the target device, such as taught by Liu et al., for the purpose of selectively protecting sensitive information.
Manchinasetti, Lee and Liu et al. do not teach wherein the trigger for protecting sensitive information comprises an object approaching the source end device, and detecting, by the source end device, whether the object approaches said source end device.
Ogita teach wherein the trigger for protecting sensitive information comprises an object approaching the source end device (paragraph 94, “it is determined that the user is engaged in a call with the cellular phone terminal put on his/her ear (second use case) so that the display mode is automatically switched to the privacy protection mode M4”), and detecting, by the source end device, whether the object approaches said source end device (Fig. 13, paragraphs 94-96, “when the electrostatic sensor 46 provided in the vicinity of the receiver 22 detects a contact with an ear or a face and it is determined that the detected contact area is within a certain threshold area range determined in advance, for example, it is determined that the user is engaged in a call with the cellular phone terminal put on his/her ear (second use case) so that the display mode is automatically switched to the privacy protection mode M4”, in other words, the display on the second screen is stopped, said second screen is analogous to the target device screen of Manchinasetti and Lee et al. because it may potentially be observed by an unauthorized non-party to a phone call).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Manchinasetti and Lee et al., wherein the trigger for protecting sensitive information comprises an object approaching the source end device, and detecting, by the source end device, whether the object approaches said source end device, such as taught by Ogita, for the purpose of providing privacy.
Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu and Ogita et al. do not necessarily teach upon detecting that an object approaches the source end device, stopping, by the source end device, displaying a call interface corresponding to the call event.
Strutt et al. teach upon detecting that an object approaches the source end device, stopping, by the source end device, displaying a call interface corresponding to the call event (paragraph 2, “The main function of such a proximity sensor is to detect when the user has positioned the device close to the ear during an ongoing phone call, in which case the touchscreen of the mobile device is disabled or switched off to prevent false touch events due to contact of the ear or other body part of the user with the screen of the mobile device. Since the touch screen is not normally used while the user has placed a call and has positioned the device close to their head or next to their ear, the touch screen controller can either be switched off or may enter a low-power mode to save power. Additionally, the screen lighting of the device is also normally switched off to save power”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu and Ogita et al., so that upon detecting that an object approaches the source end device, stopping, by the source end device, displaying a call interface corresponding to the call event, such as taught by Strutt et al., for the purpose of reducing power consumption.
Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach blocking the call interface while continuing, by the source end device, to send the second display interface to the target device, and triggering the target device to continue to display the second display interface in the second window (Manchinasetti, Figs. 9A and 9B, a plurality of windows, each displaying a different application; Lee, paragraph 68, ”the privacy mode may mean a mode set to display a notification with privacy information excluded, for the occurring event, on a display device”, in other words, individual events are deemed private, an incoming call, comprising target information, may be deemed as a private event, and its associated screen may be blocked, it is implicitly disclosed that previously displayed screen events that were not deemed private may be continued being displayed in other application windows such as those disclosed by Manchinasetti).
As per claim 6, Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the blocking picture comprises prompt information advising of an incoming call (Lee, Fig. 8D).
As per claim 7, Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein after the triggering, by the source end device, the target device to display a preset blocking picture in the first window, the method further comprises: receiving, by the source end device in response to an operation input by the user into the second window, operation information sent by the target device; updating, by the source end device, the second display interface to a third display interface based on the operation information; and sending, by the source end device, the third display interface to the target device, and triggering the target device to display the third display interface in the second window (Lee, paragraph 68, ”the privacy mode may mean a mode set to display a notification with privacy information excluded, for the occurring event, on a display device”, in other words, individual events are deemed private, an incoming call, comprising target information, may be deemed as a private event, and its associated screen may be blocked, it is implicitly disclosed that the previously displayed screen whose events were not deemed private may be continued, interacted with and updated accordingly).
As per claim 8, Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach the method according to claim 1,wherein after the triggering, by the source end device, the target device to display a preset blocking picture in the first window, the method further comprises: after the source end device detects that the call event ends or no object approaches the source end device, synchronously displaying, by the source end device, a fourth display interface with the first window of the target device, wherein the fourth display interface is the same as or different from the first display interface (Lee, paragraph 68, ”the privacy mode may mean a mode set to display a notification with privacy information excluded, for the occurring event, on a display device”, in other words, individual events are deemed private, an incoming call, comprising target information, may be deemed as a private event, and its associated screen may be blocked, it is implicitly disclosed that the previously displayed screen whose events were not deemed private may be continued after the call ends and the mirrored screen returns to the previous screen that had been deemed as not comprising private information).
As per claim 9, Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach the method according to claim 1,wherein the detecting whether an object approaches the source end device comprises: detecting, by the source end device a distance between the object and the source end device by using an optical proximity sensor; and determining, by the source end device, that the object approaches the source end device when the distance between the object and the source end device is less than a preset value (Ogita, paragraph 95).
As per claim 10, Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the call event comprises an event of answering a call of a contact or an event of making a call to a contact (Lee, Fig. 8D).
As per claim 21, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 1 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason. Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. further teach an electronic device, comprising: a display; one or more processors; and a memory storing a computer program comprising instructions that, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors (Lee, paragraph 11).
As per claim 26, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 6 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason.
As per claim 27, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 7 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason.
As per claim 28, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 8 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason.
As per claim 29, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 9 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason.
As per claim 30, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 10 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0199715 to Manchinasetti et al.; in view of US 2021/0099564 to Lee et al.; in view of US 2015/0302621 to Liu et al.; in view of US 2011/0063490 to Ogita; in view of US 2021/0303099 to Strutt et al.; in view of US 2022/0156029 to Lee et al., from here-on referred to as Lee2.
As per claim 2, Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the triggering the target device to display a preset blocking picture in the first window comprises: sending, by the source end device, a notification event to the target device (paragraph 69, “the electronic device 101 (e.g., the processor 120 of FIG. 1) may display the secure notification on the display device 201a of the external electronic device 201 if the occurring event includes privacy information”), and instructing the target device to display the preset blocking picture in the first window in response to the notification event (Lee, Fig. 8D, paragraph 108, “the notification 720 associated with the occurring event may include a mirroring screen for the screen displayed”, notice that during screen mirroring, if privacy is desired during an incoming to a source device, the screen mirror picture in the target device is replaced with a blocking picture).
Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the notification event comprises an identifier of the first window.
Lee2 teaches wherein the notification event comprises an identifier of the first window (Figs. 9 and 12B, operation 986, paragraph 125, “a content of one application, task, or activity may be mirrored on each screen (or window) shared during the screen sharing service, and accordingly, the app execution containers 612 and 614 may have a package name or task ID of the application”; paragraph 165, “the app execution container may add an ID of the app execution container to metadata”; paragraph 188, “IDs of the virtual displays (or containers) 1230, 1232, and 1234 displayed on the corresponding windows”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al., so that the notification event comprises an identifier of the first window, such as taught by Lee2, for the purpose of efficiently managing inter-device communication.
As per claim 4, Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein projecting a first display interface of a first application onto a first window of a target device for display comprises outputting, by the source end device, a first display interface to the target device (Manchinasetti, Fig. 9C, 1920) and a source end device display of the source end device (Manchinasetti, Fig. 9C, 1920); and wherein projecting the second display interface of the second application onto the second window of the target device for display comprises outputting, by the source end device, a second display interface to the target device (Manchinasetti, Fig. 9C, 1922/1924).
Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. do not explicitly disclose drawing, by the source end device, the first display interface of the first application on a first virtual screen; and drawing, by the source end device, the second display interface of the second application on a second virtual screen.
Lee2 suggests drawing, by the source end device, the first display interface of the first application on a first virtual screen; and drawing, by the source end device, the second display interface of the second application on a second virtual screen (paragraph 68, “a first electronic device 300 may include a virtual display 360 (virtual display) to transmit a screen generated by an application to a second electronic device 350”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al., by drawing, by the source end device, the first display interface of the first application on a first virtual screen; and drawing, by the source end device, the second display interface of the second application on a second virtual screen, such as taught by Lee2, for the purpose of efficiently sharing data across connected devices.
As per claim 5, Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the projecting, by a source end device, a first display interface of a first application onto a first window of a target device for display comprises: outputting, by the source end device, the first display interface to the target device (Manchinasetti, Fig. 9C, 1920) and a display of the source end device (Manchinasetti, Fig. 9C, 1920); and the projecting, by the source end device, a second display interface of a second application onto a second window of the target device for display comprises outputting, by the source end device, the second display interface to the target device (Manchinasetti, Fig. 9C, 1922/1924).
Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al. do not explicitly disclose drawing, by the source end device, the first display interface of the first application in a first area of a first virtual screen; and drawing, by the source end device, the second display interface of the second application in a second area of the first virtual screen.
Lee2 suggests drawing, by the source end device, the first display interface of the first application in a first area of a first virtual screen; and drawing, by the source end device, the second display interface of the second application in a second area of the first virtual screen (paragraph 68, “a first electronic device 300 may include a virtual display 360 (virtual display) to transmit a screen generated by an application to a second electronic device 350”, the virtual area occupied by the combination of 2 display screens will be construed as the claimed “first virtual screen”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Manchinasetti, Lee, Liu, Ogita and Strutt et al., by drawing, by the source end device, the first display interface of the first application in a first area of a first virtual screen; and drawing, by the source end device, the second display interface of the second application in a second area of the first virtual screen, such as taught by Lee2, for the purpose of efficiently sharing data across connected devices.
As per claim 22, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 2 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason.
As per claim 24, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 4 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason.
As per claim 25, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 5 and it is therefore rejected for similar reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, from 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached on (571) 272-7603. 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.
/JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622