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 .
Double Patenting
1. 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).
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-21 of U.S. Patent application No. (17/729,506). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claims similar methods and comprise almost identical steps (See claim below for comparison).
Application No. 18/768,339
1. A method, comprising: identifying, as a virtual display for a first device connected to a video conference using a client application, a display of a second device using a driver included within the client application; and facilitating, during the video conference, a sharing of content from the first device to the virtual display.
US patent application No. 17,729,506
1. A method, comprising: instantiating, at using a virtual display driver included within a client application used to connect a first device associated with a conference participant of to a video conference, a virtual display based on a connection established between the first device and a second device; and facilitating a screen share of first content during the video conference from the first device via the second device using the virtual display while second content excluded from the screen share is output at a display of the first device.
Application No. 18/768,339
11. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: identifying, as a virtual display for a first device connected to a video conference using a client application, a display of a second device using a driver included within the client application; and facilitating, during the video conference, a sharing of content from the first device to the virtual display.
US patent application No. 17,729,506
11. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: instantiating, at -using a virtual display driver included within a client application used to connect a first device associated with a conference participant of connected to a video conference, a virtual display based on a connection established between the first device and a second device; and facilitating a screen share of first content during the video conference from the first device via the second device using the virtual display while second content excluded from the screen share is output at a display of the first device.
Application No. 18/768,339
16. A system, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to: identify, as a virtual display for a first device connected to a video conference using a client application, a display of a second device using a driver included within the client application; and facilitate, during the video conference, a sharing of content from the first device to the virtual display.
US patent application No. 17,729,506
16. A system, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to: identify, as a virtual display for a first device connected to a video conference using a client application, a display of a second device using a driver included within the client application; and facilitate, during the video conference, a sharing of content from the first device to the virtual display.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the US patent application 17729506 and is covered by the co-pending patent application since the current application and the co-pending application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in the co-pending patent application and it is broader than the claimed invention in the co-pending patent application. No new invention or new improvement is being claimed in the instant application. Applicant is now attempting to claim broadly that which had been previously described in more detail in the claims of the patent (In re Van Ornum, 214 USPQ 761 CCPA 1982).
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why Applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1.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.
2. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayfield et al. (US 11412180)
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, Mayfield discloses a method, comprising: identifying, as a virtual display for a first device connected to a video conference using a client application (Col.2 lines 24-42 and Col.5 lines 55-60: Mayfield discusses identifying a region in a virtual screen corresponding to a live video feed; and how a user may contact the video conference provider using a client device or select an option to create a new meeting; such an option may be provided in a webpage accessed by a client device or client application executed by a client device), a display of a second device using a driver included within the client application (Col.3 lines 49-58, Col.4 lines 1-7 and Col.5 lines 55-60: Mayfield discusses how content depicted on the display of each participant's client device, and the participants may view relevant portions of the content accessed by a client device or client application executed by a client device);
Mayfield discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically point out “facilitating, during the video conference, a sharing of content from the first device to the virtual display” Mayfield however discloses how the system obtains presentation content comprising one or more content items; identifying a region in a virtual screen corresponding to a live video feed; and enabling all participants to view the content, without needing to distribute a copy to each participant in the video conference system (Mayfield: Col.2 lines 25-30 and Col.3 lines 59-67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret “the sharing of content during a video conferencing; and the content presentation/sharing in a virtual screen corresponding to a live video feed” as “facilitating, a sharing of content from the first device to the virtual display during the video conference” as disclosed by Mayfield, thus enabling the presenter to easily manage the presentation and providing a consistent presentation experience, despite presenting the content to different audiences, as teach by Mayfield.
Considering claim 3, Mayfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the display of the second device using the driver included within the client application (Col.5 lines 59-60 and fig.11, 1160: video conference software) comprises: using the driver to cause an operating system of the first device to recognize the display of the second device as an additional display available to the first device (fig.4, 430a-430d).
Considering claim 5, Mayfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein facilitating the sharing of the content from the first device to the virtual display comprises: enabling a movement of the content from a display of the first device to the virtual display before or after initiating a screen share operation (Col.1 lines 48-59 and Col.15 lines 7-21).
Considering claim 6, Mayfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual display is identified based on a connection between the first device and the second device, the method comprising: establishing the connection between the first device and the second device using one of ultrasonic pairing, a sharing key, Bluetooth, or a casting protocol (Col.4 lines 8-17 and Col.12 lines 30-35: screen sharing to a remote user, i.e. via a sharing key).
Considering claim 7, Mayfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual display is identified based on a connection between the first device and the second device (Col.2 lines 27-28: a virtual screen corresponding to a live video feed), the method comprising: terminating the connection between the first device and the second device (fig.11, 1140, 1160).
Considering claim 9, Mayfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the video conference is implemented using software of a unified communications as a service software platform (Col.14 lines 24-44 and Col.15 lines 10-14: Mayfield discusses a video conference software connecting video conference provider to join a meeting).
Considering claim 10, Mayfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first device is a personal device and the second device is a shared device (Col.3 lines 59-67, Col.14 lines 39-41 and Col.15 lines 7-11: Mayfield discusses how one participant (the “presenter”) share video conference content with other client devices).
Considering claim 13, Mayfield discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the virtual display is identified based on a connection between the first device and the second device (Col.2 lines 24-42 and Col.5 lines 55-60), the operations comprising: authenticating use of the second device with the virtual display based on the connection established between the first device and the second device (Col.6 lines 4-21 and Col.7 lines 27-45: established at the user identity secured by a password or additional security features, such as biometric authentication, two-factor authentication, etc.).
Considering claim 14, Mayfield discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, comprising: causing an operating system of the first device to install the driver (Col.14 lines 24-44, Col.15 lines 10-14 and fig.11: Mayfield discusses a video conference software connecting video conference provider to join a meeting).
Considering claim 15, Mayfield discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the virtual display is identified based on a connection between the first device and the second device (Col.2 lines 24-42 and Col.5 lines 55-60), and wherein the connection between the first device and the second device is terminated based on a connection established between the second device and a third device (Col.5 lines 35-45 and fig.4: Mayfield discusses virtual "rooms" to which participants are connected; wherein the room in this context is a construct by a server that provides a common point at which the various video and audio data is received to the various participants; and how a virtual screen corresponding to a live video feed).
Considering claim 18, Mayfield discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the display of the second device is added to a list of available displays of the first device (fig.4, 430a-430d).
3. Claim(s) 2, 12, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayfield et al. (US 11412180) in view of Wan et al. (US 20150378662)
Considering claims 2, 12, 17 and 20, Mayfield fail to disclose claims 2, 12, 17 and 20. Wan however discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claims 2, 12, 17 and 20, wherein identifying the display of the second device using the driver included within the client application comprises: instantiating the virtual display based on the first device being within a threshold range of the second device ( Paragraphs: 0117, 0459 and 0487: Wan discusses how a first distance from the electronic device can see the real image in the first display output region, and the second display apparatus is used to output a virtual image corresponding to the display image; and how the electronic device is arranged with a distance sensor which may be arranged on the same plane with the second display screen based on threshold range by the distance sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Mayfield, and modify a system wherein identifying the display of the second device using the driver included within the client application comprises: instantiating the virtual display based on the first device being within a threshold range of the second device, as taught by Wan, thus enhancing the privacy of the electronic device while the user experience is greatly improved, as discussed by Wan.
4. Claim(s) 4, 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayfield et al. (US 11412180) in view of Devin et al. (WO 2021/163388).
Considering claims 4 and 19, Mayfield fail to disclose claims 4 and 19. Devin however disclose the method of claims 4 and 19, wherein facilitating the sharing of the content from the first device to the virtual display comprises: facilitating a sharing of first content from the first device to one or more other devices connected to the video conference while second content excluded from the sharing is output at a display of the first device (Paragraphs: 0501, 0356 and 0427: Mayfield discusses how the user has shared information; and how one or more users that do not share the one or more characteristics with the user are excluded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Mayfield, and modify a system wherein facilitating the sharing of the content from the first device to the virtual display comprises: facilitating a sharing of first content from the first device to one or more other devices connected to the video conference while second content excluded from the sharing is output at a display of the first device, as taught by Devin, thus allowing to update the display of the one or more representations of the physical activity metrics based on the received activity data, as discussed by Devin.
Considering claim 8, Devin further discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining that the first device is within a threshold range of the second device, wherein the display of the second device is identified based on the determination (Paragraphs: 0589-0590 and 0594: Devin discusses a wireless communication, for purposes of a paired relationship, occurs over a peer-to-peer wireless communication protocol such as Bluetooth).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 M-F.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
/YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2691 01/23/2026