Response to Amendments and Arguments
Amendments and argument filed on 06/05/2026 have been fully considered and are not found to place the application in a condition for allowance.
The applicant asserts that “Kwon does not teach receiving, in the second window interface on the first device and in response to the first operation instruction, operation information from a user based on the second window interface of the first device” (see remarks, p. 12). The Office respectfully disagrees. Such limitations are clearly taught by Kwon in fig. 7. Specifically, Kwon teaches receiving, in the second window interface on the first device and in response to the first operation instruction, operation information from a user based on the second window interface of the first device (see fig. 7, wherein the user interaction is performed on the first device 100 according to which the original content is sent to the second device; see ¶ 99).
Applicant further asserts that “Kwon uses the original interface but does not disclose sending an updated, separate window interface to the secondary device.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Kwon clearly teaches such limitations in fig. 7 and ¶ 94-100. Accordingly, the limitations are found to be taught by Kwon and the arguments are not found persuasive.
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al., US 2020/0244626 A1, hereinafter “Kwon”.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches a display method applied to a first device (see fig. 3, element 100) and comprising: running, on the first device, a second window interface in response to an instruction (figs. 5-7, see the interface of first device 100, ¶ 94-100); sending, to a second device when the second window interface comprises a security flag bit (¶ 94, sensitive information is considered to be a security flag bit), a first task identity corresponding to the second window interface and corresponding to a first security protection instruction (fig. 7, element 710 including anonymized data and request link 720, ¶ 94-97), wherein the first security protection instruction instructs the second device to display a projected interface for the second window interface as a first security interface (fig. 7, see anonymized data, ¶ 94-97); receiving a first operation instruction from the second device, wherein the first operation instruction comprises the first task identity corresponding to the second window interface (fig. 7, first operation instruction being selecting element 720, ¶ 94-97); displaying the second window interface in response to the first operation instruction (fig. 7, wherein the anonymized interface is displayed); receiving, in the second window interface on the first device and in response to the first operation instruction, operation information from a user based on the second window interface (fig. 7, see window interface of element 100); updating, in response to the operation information, the second window interface to a third window interface, wherein the third window interface comprises no security flag; and projecting the third window interface to the second device, wherein the third window interface comprises no security interface (fig. 7, element 740 sent to the second device with no security flag, ¶ 97-99).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon teaches a first device (fig. 2, element 100), comprising: a memory (fig. 2, element 130, ¶ 46) configured to store computer instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer instructions (fig. 2, element 120, ¶ 47) to cause the first device to perform the display method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a first device (¶ 145) to perform the display method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 20, Kwon teaches that the first operation instruction is associated with an application (fig. 7, for example a messaging application or an application related to displaying the ID card; ¶ 95-96), wherein the second window interface is of the application, and wherein running the second window interface comprises running, in response to the first operation instruction, the application to start the second window interface (fig. 7, see the interface of element 100, ¶ 97).
Regarding claims 3 and 21, Kwon teaches receiving a second operation instruction from the user (fig. 7, operation at link 720, ¶ 95-96), wherein the second operation instruction corresponds to an application (fig. 7, for example a messaging application or an application related to displaying the ID card; ¶ 95-96), wherein the second window interface is of the application, and wherein running the second window interface comprises: running, in response to the second operation instruction, the application; and displaying the second window interface (fig. 7, see the interface of element 100, ¶ 97).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 18, Kwon teaches invoking a window manager service of the first device to traverse a window state of the second window interface (fig. 7, ¶ 95-96), wherein the second window interface comprises the security flag bit when the window state of the second window interface comprises a security flag (ID card includes sensitive information).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Kwon teaches that the first security interface includes a first prompt that instructs the user to perform an operation on the first device to protect privacy (fig. 7, see interface of element 100 such as the fingerprint interface, ¶ 94-99), or wherein the first security interface includes a first icon that instructs the user to display an application on the first device (fig. 7, icon 735, ¶ 94-99).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon teaches that the security interface includes a first icon that instructs the user to display an application on the first device (figs. 5-6, wherein the user uses the file attachment icon to attach content having sensitive information which displays the application of fig. 6 on first device 100; ¶ 84-89).
Regarding claim 22, Kwon teaches that the security interface includes a first prompt that instructs the user to perform an operation on the first device to protect privacy (fig. 6, see interface of element 100, ¶ 89-90), or the security interface includes a first icon that instructs the user to display an application on the first device (figs. 5-6, wherein the user uses the file attachment icon to attach content having sensitive information which displays the application of fig. 6 on first device 100; ¶ 84-89).
Regarding claim 23, Kwon teaches that after updating the second window interface to the third window interface, the display method further comprises: displaying, by the first device, the third window interface (fig. 8, see element 810 which is the third window interface displayed on first device 100); receiving, on the first device, a second operation instruction corresponding to the third window interface (¶ 108-109, see storing in a general folder); updating, by the first device based on the second operation instruction, the third window interface to a fourth window interface (¶ 108-109, anonymizing the image); and determining that the fourth window interface comprises a security flag (anonymized data); and sending, to the second device and in response to determining that the fourth window interface comprises the security flag, a second security protection instruction and a second task identity corresponding to the fourth window interface (fig. 6, element 630, ¶ 88-91), wherein the second security protection instruction instructs the second device to update the display of the projected interface for the fourth window interface as a second security interface (see anonymized data for the interface of second device 200 in fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, in view of Thiyagarajan et al., US 2015/0278534 A1, hereinafter “Thiyagarajan”.
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 19, Kwon teaches that the security flag comprises a first flag, and a second flag, wherein the first flag indicates an application security lock (fig. 6, security lock provided via interface 610), wherein the second flag indicates that setting is automatically performed by an application (fig. 3, element S320, see ¶ 62-64 wherein sensitive content is automatically identified).
Kwon does not teach and a third flag, wherein the third flag indicates that a security keyboard is invoked.
Thiyagarajan, however, teaches that a security flag may be associated with a keyboard (fig. 1B, security keyboard 190, ¶ 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kwon in view of Thiyagarajan. The references teach preventing sensitive data from being shared based on flagging such content as sensitive. Thiyagarajan further teaches a screen sharing method wherein a keyboard for inputting sensitive data may be prevented from being shared with another device. As such one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a security flag for such a keyboard in the system of Kwon in order to prevent sensitive information “from leaking out unintentionally” (see Kwon ¶ 86) in a screen sharing session such as that of Thiyagarajan.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15 and 17-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-16, 17, 21-23, 18, 3, and 8, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,838, hereinafter “the patent”, in view of Kwon.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 of the patent do not teach receiving a first operation instruction from the second device, wherein the first operation instruction comprises the first task identity corresponding to the second window interface; displaying the second window interface in response to the first operation instruction; receiving, in the second window interface on the first device and in response to the first operation instruction, operation information from a user based on the second window interface; updating, in response to the operation information, the second window interface to a third window interface, wherein the third window interface comprises no security flag; and projecting the third window interface to the second device, wherein the third window interface comprises no security interface.
Kwon, however, teaches receiving a first operation instruction from the second device, wherein the first operation instruction comprises the first task identity corresponding to the second window interface (fig. 7, first operation instruction being selecting element 720, ¶ 94-97); displaying the second window interface in response to the first operation instruction (fig. 7, wherein the anonymized interface is displayed); receiving, in the second window interface on the first device and in response to the first operation instruction, operation information from a user based on the second window interface (fig. 7, see window interface of element 100); updating, in response to the operation information, the second window interface to a third window interface, wherein the third window interface comprises no security flag; and projecting the third window interface to the second device, wherein the third window interface comprises no security interface (fig. 7, element 740 sent to the second device with no security flag, ¶ 97-99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of the patent in view of Kwon in order to include additional security features for the devices. The patent and Kwon teach secured interactions between electronic devices and one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to include the security features of Kwon, thereby facilitating more secure information sharing between electronic devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at (571) 272-7764. 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.
/SEPEHR AZARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights