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 Amendment
Applicant argues for Claims 1-14 (Remarks filed 6/22/2026) Debate does not obtain a representation of the screen and transmit the representation to the computing device via an external emulating device. Examiner disagrees in-part and agrees in-part. Examiner disagrees with the assertion that Debate does not obtain a representation of the screen and transmit the representation to the computing device as in cited paragraph [0049] (Non-Final rejection 2) resulting in “a user 108 can view a state of the mobile computer device 125.” ([0049]).
Examiner agrees that the emulator is an internal component of mobile computer device 125 (Fig. 1) of Debate as discussed in an interview on May 28, 2026. Applicant is directed to the teachings of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0081616 to Poulin.
Thus, the rejection of Claims 1-14 are maintained.
Applicant does not provide separate arguments for Claims 15-20 but relies on the argument made for Claims 1-14 above. Thus, the arguments for Claims 15-10 are not persuasive and the rejection of the Claims 15-020 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0089487 to Debate in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0081616 to Poulin.
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, from a mobile device (Fig. 1 125), a representation of a screen displayed on the mobile device via a first connection between the emulating device and the mobile device (Fig. 1 emulator 180 internally connected to mobile device 125 where “[t]he 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] resulting in “a user 108 can view a state of the mobile computer device 125.” ([0049]);
transmit the representation of the screen to a first computing device via a second connection that is different from the first connection and emulating device is proximate to the mobile device (Fig. 1 DISPLAY INFO 166 transmitted from 130-2 to 170 [0050] via {second} connection 190) and wherein the emulating device is proximate {internal} to the mobile device of Fig. 1);
receive, from the first computing device 170 via second connection (Fig. 1 connection 190), 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, via the first connection, 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. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose that the emulator is external to the mobile device or the computing device. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Poulin.
Poulin teaches of emulating information playing on a mobile device (Titl.) wherein a software product emulates information on a mobile device as in Fig. 1A. Emulator 101 is internal to Authorizing environment 122 and external to mobile device 114 and similarly emulator 1510 is internal to Authorizing environment 1502. This would be analogous to the system of Debate where the emulator is internal to mobile computer device 125. However, Poulin also teaches that “[a]pplication developer 1504, emulator 1510 and network simulator 1520 may each be a part of authoring environment 1502, or may each be an external software program that is configured to cooperate with components of authoring environment 1502.” [0108].
Here, Debate discloses the claimed invention except for the emulator being external to either the mobile device or the computing device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the teachings of Poulin to make the emulator external, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)). In doing do the external emulator would be in communication which each device via a {second} connection formerly the internal connecition.
In Reference to Claims 2 and 11
Debate discloses establishing a connection with the mobile 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 wired first connection between the emulating device and the mobile device (Fig. 1) and in light of Poulin there is a wired connection to the external emulator where Poulin teaches that the first connection can be of a USB and Ethernet (wired). Debate discloses a second connection to the computing device over network 190 ([0110]).
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 {first} 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]).
10. Claim 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debate, Poulin further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0191531 to Wilcox.
In Reference to Claim 15
Debate discloses a switching device:
obtaining, from the mobile device, 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] resulting in “a user 108 can view a state of the mobile computer device 125.” ([0049]);
transmit the representation of the screen to a first computing device via a network connection between the switching device {emulator} and the first computing device, wherein the switching device {emulator} device is proximate to the mobile device (Fig. 1 DISPLAY INFO 166 transmitted from 130-2 to 170 [0050] via network connection 190) and wherein the emulating device is proximate {internal} to the mobile device of Fig. 1);
receive, from the first computing device, via network connection 190 (Fig. 1), 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 to obtain information. 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
Wilcox discloses a USB serial port [0016] (see also [0015], [0023, 0027, 0029]).
In Reference to Claim 20
Debate discloses the emulating device is configured to emulate a mouse input device ([0057]).
In Reference to Claim 21
Debate disclose a video signal wherein ”[t]he images received by user 108 may also be
recorded as a series of still frames or encoded into a suitable video format for later replay. [0050]. Additionally, Wilcox teaches of a video signal from the mobile device where “[t]he mobile device 110 also includes a camera 111 which can capture an image, a video, a live feed, etc., of the screen of the external computing device 140 (or any other area around the trouble computing device 140 such as cable connections, etc.) and send the captured image data back to the remote service device 120. Thus, the remote service technician can visually see what the screen says on the external computing device 140.” [0026].
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. 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
Prosecution Insights