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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0089487 to Debate.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 10
Debate discloses an emulating device (Figs. 1 and 8), comprising:
a processor circuit (Fig. 8 processor 813); and
a memory that stores program code (Fig. 8 CRSM 812 [0151]) structured to cause the processor circuit to:
obtain a representation of a screen displayed on a mobile device (“The display information 166 can include a copy of images that are displayed (or images that would be displayed or played back) on the display screen 130-2 if the user 108 were locally controlling the mobile computer device 125.” [0049]);
transmit the representation of the screen to a first computing device (Fig. 1 DISPLAY INFO 166 transmitted from 130-2 to 170 [0050]);
receive, from the first computing device 170, a control command comprising instructions to perform an action with respect to the mobile device (“In one embodiment, the display screen 130-1 displays a remote control interface including two symbols (e.g., software buttons) labeled `home` and `lock`. Selecting either of these symbols on display screen 130-1 results in transmission of a respective message (e.g., control input 165-1) to the agent application 140 [0055]);
convert the control command to an input command based on an input device emulated by the emulating device (“The agent application 140 in turn emulates the pressing of the home button of the mobile computer device 125 by generating the appropriate function calls to the operating system 110 [0055]); and
transmit the input command to the mobile device (“Accordingly, via the agent application 140, it appears to the mobile computer device 125 that the user pressed a local home button of the mobile computer device 125.” [0055], Fig. 10 1040).
In Reference to Claims 2 and 11
Debate discloses establishing a connection with the mobile device by emulating the input device (Fig. 10 1005, 0162]); and transmit the input command via the established connection (Fig. 10 1040 {0165]).
In Reference to Claims 3 and 12
Debate discloses controlling of the mobile device by external devices (Fig. 1 external device 102) is restricted to input devices capable of interfacing with an accessibility interface of the mobile device to provide input user interface commands (keyboards and touchscreens [0106]); and the emulating device interfaces with the accessibility interface (Fig. 1 emulating device 106 interfaces with accessibility device agent application 140).
In Reference to Claims 4 and 13
Debate discloses the emulating device is configured to emulate a mouse input device ([0057]).
In Reference to Claim 5 and 6
Debate discloses a wireless connection ([0110]) between the emulating device and the mobile device.
In Reference to Claims 7 and 14
Debate discloses obtains the representation of the screen, the emulating device is configured to receive a video signal from the mobile device via the local connection (remote computer receives a series of still frames or a suitable video format ([0050], see also images intended for display on the display screen [0080]).
In Reference to Claim 8
Debate discloses screen capturing application executing on the mobile device (Fig. 1 display manager 185 ([0084]).
In Reference to Claim 9
Debate discloses the emulating device is a switching device (Fig. 8 [0154]) as well as a second computing device where the emulator can be a separate device (Fig. 8 [0143-1044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debate in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0191531 to Wilcox.
Debate discloses obtaining a representation of a screen displayed on a mobile device (“The display information 166 can include a copy of images that are displayed (or images that would be displayed or played back) on the display screen 130-2 if the user 108 were locally controlling the mobile computer device 125.” [0049]);
transmit the representation of the screen to a first computing device (Fig. 1 DISPLAY INFO 166 transmitted from 130-2 to 170 [0050]);
receive, from the first computing device 170, a control command comprising instructions to perform an action with respect to the mobile device (“In one embodiment, the display screen 130-1 displays a remote control interface including two symbols (e.g., software buttons) labeled `home` and `lock`. Selecting either of these symbols on display screen 130-1 results in transmission of a respective message (e.g., control input 165-1) to the agent application 140 [0055]);
convert the control command to an input command based on an input device emulated by the emulating device (“The agent application 140 in turn emulates the pressing of the home button of the mobile computer device 125 by generating the appropriate function calls to the operating system 110 [0055]); and
transmit the input command to the mobile device (“Accordingly, via the agent application 140, it appears to the mobile computer device 125 that the user pressed a local home button of the mobile computer device 125.” [0055], Fig. 10 1040).
Debate discloses the invention substantially as claimed to an emulator and mobile device. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a plurality of ports. One of skill in the art would be aware of the remote technical support of Wilcox.
According to Wilcox, interfacing with and controlling a remote device (Fig. 1) can involve connecting to the remote device via one of more ports of the device to include various adapters or ports such as a USB port, console port, lightening port, mini-USB port, etc. ([0016], see also [0023, 0027, 0029]). Wilcox invents this system wherein a technician attending to a locally-connected service system that can plug into a port of a troubled computing device such as a server, a laptop, a personal computer, and the like, and provide a remote user (e.g., a service technician, etc.) with physical access to the troubled computing device even when there is no network connection or power to the troubled computing device. [0015])
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify mobile device of Debate with the amplified understanding that the troubled device will be configured with ports in order to access the device. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 16
Debate discloses controlling of the mobile device by external devices (Fig. 1 external device 102) is restricted to input devices capable of interfacing with an accessibility interface of the mobile device to provide input user interface commands (keyboards and touchscreens [0106]); and the emulating device interfaces with the accessibility interface (Fig. 1 emulating device 106 interfaces with accessibility device agent application 140).
In Reference to Claim 17
Debate discloses obtains a media signal {video signal} from the mobile device via the local connection (remote computer receives a series of still frames or a suitable video format ([0050], see also images intended for display on the display screen [0080]) and capture the representation of the screen from the media content signal ([0050, 0080]).
In Reference to Claim 18
Debate discloses making an established connection from the emulatin device to the mobile device (Fig. 1) for transmitting input command to the mobile device (“Accordingly, via the agent application 140, it appears to the mobile computer device 125 that the user pressed a local home button of the mobile computer device 125.” [0055], Fig. 10 1040). This connection is established by the one or more ports as taught by Wilcox to access the mobile device (See above rejection of Claim 15 for ports [0015-0016], [0023, 0027, 0029]).
In Reference to Claim 19
Debate discloses transmitting the input commands (“Accordingly, via the agent application 140, it appears to the mobile computer device 125 that the user pressed a local home button of the mobile computer device 125.” [0055]). Wilcox discloses the use of the port to make this connection (See above rejection of Claim 15 for ports [0015-0016], [0023, 0027, 0029]).
In Reference to Claim 20
Debate discloses the emulating device is configured to emulate a mouse input device ([0057]).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
9. 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.
10. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715