DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application 18/767652 filed on 07/09/2024.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 14 are independent claims; Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 07/09/2024 are acceptable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9-13 and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Independent Claims 1 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 7 of U. S. Patent No. 11650735 (hereinafter 735’) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Instant Application 18/767652
Patent 735’
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
+ in a communication network between a browser and a remote device, generating a mirrored display of the remote device on the browser by broadcasting a video feed from the remote device to the browser;
+ receiving user interactions entered on the mirrored display;
+ determining user interactions directed to accessibility features;
+ generating accessibility commands based on the user interactions directed to accessibility features; and
+ entering the accessibility commands to the remote device.
Claim 14:
A non-transitory computer storage that stores executable program instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, configure the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
+ in a communication network between a browser and a remote device, generating a mirrored display of the remote device on the browser by broadcasting a video feed from the remote device to the browser;
+ receiving user interactions entered on the mirrored display;
+ determining user interactions directed to accessibility features;
+ generating accessibility commands based on the user interactions directed to accessibility features; and
+ entering the accessibility commands to the remote device.
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
+establishing a connection session between a browser and a remote device, wherein the remote device is in a location remote relative to the browser, and the connection session between the browser and the remote device comprises a data channel and a video channel; generating a mirrored remote device display on the browser by broadcasting, via the remote device video channel, a video feed from the remote device to the browser;
+ receiving a command comprising enabling accessibility mode;
+ activating accessibility mode on the remote device;
+ receiving user interactions entered on the mirrored display;
+ determining user interactions directed to accessibility features;
+ generating accessibility commands based on the user interactions directed to accessibility features; and
+ entering the accessibility commands to the remote device.
Claim 7:
A non-transitory computer storage that stores executable program instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, configure the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
+ establishing a connection session between a browser and a remote device, wherein the remote device is in a location remote relative to the browser, and the connection session between the browser and the remote device comprises a data channel and a video channel; generating a mirrored remote device display on the browser by broadcasting, via the remote device video channel, a video feed from the remote device to the browser;
+ receiving a command comprising enabling accessibility mode;
+ activating accessibility mode on the remote device;
+ receiving user interactions entered on the mirrored display;
+ determining user interactions directed to accessibility features;
+ generating accessibility commands based on the user interactions directed to accessibility features; and
+ entering the accessibility commands to the remote device.
Claim 11, 5, 6, 9 and 16 of the instant application are similar to claims 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of 735’ respectively
As can be seen from the table above, independent Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 1 of 735’, in that Claim 1 of 735’ contains all the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Claim 14 is similarly mapped to claim 7 of 735’ as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.”
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence et al. (“Lawrence,” US 2017/0269894), published on 21 September 2017 in view of Bull et al. (“Bull” US 2010/0293462), published on 18 November 2010.
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence teaches a method comprising: in a communication network between a browser and a remote device (Lawrence: ¶0007; A PAN can be used for streaming audio and video data from one device to another device. The PAN can stream screen mirroring data in real time between devices that access the PAN. ¶0026; WiDi is a screen mirroring technique by which frames to be rendered on a local display of a computing device are rendered on a remote display via a wireless connection. WiDi may be used for online video playback over a web browser and video chat),
generating a mirrored display of the remote device on the browser by broadcasting a video feed from the remote device to the browser (Lawrence: ¶0026; WiDi is a screen mirroring technique by which frames to be rendered on a local display of a computing device are rendered on a remote display via a wireless connection. WiDi may be used for online video playback over a web browser and video chat);
[receiving user interactions entered on the mirrored display; determining user interactions directed to accessibility features; generating accessibility commands based on the user interactions directed to accessibility features; and entering the accessibility commands to the remote device].
Lawrence does not appear to teach: receiving user interactions entered on the mirrored display; determining user interactions directed to accessibility features; generating accessibility commands based on the user interactions directed to accessibility features; and entering the accessibility commands to the remote device.
However Bull teaches a method for providing a replicate of a “native” GUI to an accessory device. Bull also teaches: receiving user interactions entered on the mirrored display (Bull: ¶0026 and Figs. 1A-1B; when PMD 102 is connected to accessory 104, the PMD 102 provides a remote GUI image that replicates the native GUI of PMD 102 to the accessory 104. ¶0027; when a user presses one of buttons 116a-h, accessory 104 can send to PMD 102 a signal indicating which of buttons 116a-h was pressed);
determining user interactions directed to accessibility features (Bull: ¶0027; when a user presses one of buttons 116a-h, accessory 104 can send to PMD 102 a signal indicating which of buttons 116a-h was pressed);
generating accessibility commands based on the user interactions directed to accessibility features; and entering the accessibility commands to the remote device (Bull: ¶0027: when a user presses one of buttons 116a-h, accessory 104 can send to PMD 102 a signal indicating which of buttons 116a-h was pressed. PMD 102 can interpret the signal and take appropriate action. The action may include updating the remote GUI image, starting or pausing playback, modifying a setting or instructing accessory 104 to modify a setting, etc)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bull and Lawrence in front of them to include the use of a remote GUI image to control portable media device as disclosed by Bull with the method of streaming audio and video from one device to another device as taught by Lawrence to provide a more consistent remote user interface experience (Bull: ¶0006).
Regarding claim 2, Lawrence and Bull teach the method of claim 1,
Lawrence and Bull further teach: wherein a host is coupled to the remote device via a wired or wireless connection, wherein the host provides the communication network to the remote device, via the wired or wireless connection (Lawrence: ¶0007; A PAN can be used for streaming audio and video data from one device to another device. The PAN can stream screen mirroring data in real time between devices that access the PAN. ¶0026; WiDi is a screen mirroring technique by which frames to be rendered on a local display of a computing device are rendered on a remote display via a wireless connection. WiDi may be used for online video playback over a web browser and video chat).
Regarding claim 7, Lawrence and Bull teach the method of claim 1,
Lawrence and Bull further teach: wherein the communication network comprises a peer-to-peer (P2P) communication network (Lawrence: ¶0030; The wireless transmission represented by the line 216 enables peer-to-peer connectivity with a second device connected to a PAN by addressing, routing, transmitting, and receiving data according to the TCP/IP protocol. ¶0026; Miracast is a screen mirroring certification standard that enables peer-to-peer wireless delivery of audio and video or other screen content between different devices based upon the 802.11 standard).
Regarding claim 8, Lawrence and Bull teach the method of claim 1,
Lawrence and Bull further teach: wherein the communication network comprises a web real-time communication (WebRTC) (Lawrence: ¶0039; keystrokes sent to the sink via an out of band data path are rendered at the remote display in near real-time).
Regarding claims 14-15, these claims are directed to a non-transitory computer storage executing the method as claimed in claims 1-2, respectively. Claims 14-15 are similar scope to claims 1-2, respectively and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer storage executing the method as claimed in claim 7. Claim 17 is similar scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence and Bull as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Xu et al. (“Xu,” US 2022/0382430), filed on 28 June 2021.
Regarding claim 3, Lawrence and Bull teach the method of claim 1,
Lawrence and Bull further do not appear to teach: wherein generating the accessibility commands comprise: generating a virtual keyboard; connecting the virtual keyboard to the remote device; converting the user interactions to accessibility keyboard shortcuts; and transmitting the accessibility keyboard shortcuts to the remote device.
However Xu teaches shortcut keys for virtual keyboards; wherein generating the accessibility commands comprise: generating a virtual keyboard (Xu: ¶0090 and Figs. 6A; user 508 may use resource access application 424 on mobile device 504 to connect to resource management services 402); connecting the virtual keyboard to the remote device (Xu: ¶0089: upon user 508 connecting to resource management services 402, resource access application 424 may provide a virtual keyboard 602. Virtual keyboard 602 may be a default mobile device keyboard that is made available to resource access application 424 and which is displayed on a screen of mobile device 504 for use by user 508. ¶0091; user 508 may use virtual keyboard 602 to open the MICROSOFT Word application, which may be a word processing application provided by resource management services 402); converting the user interactions to accessibility keyboard shortcuts (Xu: ¶0090 and Fig. 6A; virtual keyboard 602 may include a toolbar or other key display area 604 that displays multiple keys representative of keyboard or shortcut functions); and transmitting the accessibility keyboard shortcuts to the remote device (Xu: ¶0094; in response to the provided input, resource access application on client device 502 may send a request to open the application to VDA that is providing the requested application).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Xu, Lawrence and Bull in front of them to include the shortcut keys for virtual keyboards as disclosed by Xu with the method of streaming audio and video from one device to another device as taught by Lawrence to improve efficiency when using the computing device to generate or edit documents and other content (Xu: ¶0004).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer storage executing the method as claimed in claim 3. Claim 16 is similar scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
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.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights