DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/25/2024.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 6/7/2023 and 8/9/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0073107 and KR10-2023-0104065 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Controlling External Electronic Device Using Task Bar Objects
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent.
Claim Interpretation
Further concerning claim(s) 14 and 16-19: Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see MPEP § 2103.I.C.). Here, the claim(s) includes/include language that makes/make the step(s) optional but does/do not require it/them by stating a/an “in case” conditions without positively reciting a step in which the condition is actually met. Specifically, the claims are optional:
wherein the displaying of the second object comprises displaying, in case that the second object indicates a multi-media player application, user interface items for controlling functions of the multi-media player application to be adjacent to the second object (claim 14)
in case that the first user input is detected, displaying, on the display, in a popup form, information related to the application being output from the external electronic device; identifying whether a second user input is detected on the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device; and in case that the second user input is detected, entering a multi-window arrangement mode. (claim 16)
after entering the multi-window arrangement mode, identifying whether a third user input is detected on the information displayed in a popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device; in case that the third user input is detected, transmitting, to the external electronic device, a signal for requesting transmission of the information related to the application being output in the external electronic device; in response to the signal for requesting the transmission, receiving the information related to the application being output in the external electronic device from the external electronic device through the communication circuit; and outputting the information related to the application, based on the received information related to the application being output in the external electronic device (claim 17)
after entering the multi-window arrangement mode, identifying whether a fourth user input is detected in the execution screen of the second application being displayed on the display; in case that the fourth user input is detected, transmitting information related to the second application to the external electronic device through the communication circuit; (claim 18)
in case that the fourth user input is detected, identifying whether the second application is an application supported by the external electronic device; in case that the second application is identified as the application supported by the external electronic device, applying a first visual effect to the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device, and displaying the information; and in case that the second application is identified as an application which is not supported by the external electronic device, applying a second visual effect to the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device, and displaying the information. (claim 19)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 18 recite(s) the limitation(s) “the execution screen of the second application”, in for instances in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to an execution screen of a second application. Correction required.
Claim 19 is rejected as it depends on claim(s) above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv; Lin (Lv – US 20230221967 A1) in view of Heydlauf; Michael W. (hereinafter Heydlauf – US 20150208206 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Lv teaches:
An electronic device comprising: (user device 146, and figs. 1-2)
a communication circuit; (the user device that has a communication circuit because it accesses a remote desktop and connects to virtual printers via a physical network, ¶¶ 23 and 29, e.g., these can be integrated circuits or other type of circuitry, ¶ 83)
a display; (a display screen of the user device, e.g., for rendering remote desktop, ¶ 31
memory storing one or more computer programs; (software programs stored in memory, ¶¶ 83-84)
and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communication circuit, the display, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,
cause the electronic device to: (¶¶ 83-84)
display, in a task bar area of the display, a row of a first set of objects indicating a plurality of applications executable by the electronic device, (application icons 306 in taskbar 304, ¶ 33 and figs. 3 and 4)
[…],
identify an application which is executable by [an] external electronic device, (a user device opens a remote application 322, ¶¶ 36 and 39-40 and fig. 4, indicating the remote application is identified as being executable by [an] external electronic device)
display, in the task bar area of the display, a second object indicating the application which is executable by the external electronic device, (icon 320 representing remote application 322 [indicating the application which is executable by the external electronic device] is displayed in the task bar 304, ¶ 36 and fig. 4)
receive an input relating to the second object, (user actions [input], e.g., playing a local video or editing a document, for a remote application represented by the icon 322 [related to the second object] are received on a local client device, ¶ 14. The remote application is presented to, and interactable by, the user in the local device as if the remote application was locally installed, ¶ 41. Receiving an input event “related to”, or “for”, a second taskbar object is herein, it is broadly interpreted as not necessarily meaning that the input event is directly on that object, e.g., clicking on the object)
and based on the input, transmit information related to the application corresponding to the second object to the external electronic device through the communication circuit. (the received user actions result in transmitting information related to the application through a network connection to a remote desktop so both local and remote systems work together smoothly, ¶ 14)
Lv does not appear to expressly teach, but Heydlauf teaches:
detect, through the communication circuit, an external electronic device in proximity to the electronic device, based on detecting the external electronic device, connect with the external electronic device through communication (using an indoor positioning system to measure distance and automatically start a remote desktop session when a phone or mobile device gets close enough to a specific machine, Heydlauf claims 9 and 11, wherein location data can be transmitted to by a client device itself that in communication with an external device/server, and is usable to calculate the proximity between devices, ¶¶ 19 and 25-26)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include detect, through the communication circuit, an external electronic device in proximity to the electronic device, based on detecting the external electronic device, connect with the external electronic device through communication, as taught by Heydlauf.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency and convenience afforded by the device, by allowing an automatic launch of remote desktop session in a more seamless way, without a need for credential entry, Heydlauf ¶¶ 3-5.
Independent Claims 11 and 20:
Claim(s) 11 and 20 are directed to a method and computer-readable storage media for performing the functions of the electronic device in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv (US 20230221967 A1) in view of Heydlauf (US 20150208206 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hicks; Kourtny M. et al. (hereinafter Hicks – US 20140253467 A1).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lv further teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to:
display, on the display, an execution screen of a second application, (window of the active remote application 322 [execution screen] is displayed, ¶ 39, and figs. 3 and 4, there are multiple applications that can be installed and/or running at a remote desktop [second application], ¶ 14 and fig 3:314, and a user can switch from to another application, ¶ 73 and figs. 3-4 and fig. 6, that is, effectively displaying a second application)
[…],
and wherein the task bar area is located between the execution screen of the second application and a bottom edge of the display. (task bar area 304 between the execution screen of the second application and a bottom edge of the display, figs. 3-4)
Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Hicks teaches:
and display a home button in the task bar area (taskbar 212 with a plurality of buttons, including a home button, fig. 3A and ¶ 52).
together with displaying of the row of the first set of the objects and the second object (what the buttons are and their capabilities are unlimited, ¶ 52, as such, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the home button functionality could be added to the taskbar of Lv and displayed together with the buttons in Lv’s taskbar)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include and display a home button in the task bar area together with displaying of the row of the first set of the objects and the second object, as taught by Hicks.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the functions/usability of the device of Lv by offering users known, ready, single-touch access to a main function or starting view of the device, Hicks ¶ 52.
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Lv further teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to display, adjacently to the second object, at least one item for controlling at least one function of the application. (a control window [least one item for controlling at least one function of the for the application] is displayed adjacent to the second object [icon 320], and this control window includes multiple control elements, such scroll bar 330, status bar 328, minimize, maximize and close window buttons, and toolbar 326, ¶ 36 and fig. 4)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim(s) 12 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the electronic device in claim 2, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim(s) 12 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the electronic device in claim 3, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv (US 20230221967 A1) in view of Heydlauf (US 20150208206 A1) and Hicks (US 20140253467 A1), as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Jacobsen; Jeffrey J. et al. (hereinafter Jacobsen – US 20150334218 A1).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Lv further teaches that the remote application include applications like word processing, accounting, and browser applications, ¶¶ 14 and 26, and can be used simultaneously with local applications, ¶ 15. Furthermore, as explained above, Lv teaches that a control window [least one item for controlling at least one function of the for the application] is displayed adjacent to the second object [icon 320], and this control window includes multiple control elements, such scroll bar 330, status bar 328, minimize, maximize and close window buttons, and toolbar 326, ¶ 36 and fig. 4.
Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Jacobsen teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to, in case that the second object indicates a multi-media player application, display, adjacently to the second object, user interface items for controlling functions of the multi-media player application (that a type of application that can be controlled/displayed remotely, includes multimedia applications, Jacobsen Claim 1. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, in implementing the concepts of Jacobsen to Lv, to have realized that the window related to the multimedia application would similarly be displayed adjacent to the second object, as in the Word application example provided in Lv).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to, in case that the second object indicates a multi-media player application, display, adjacently to the second object, user interface items for controlling functions of the multi-media player application, as taught by Jacobsen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency, versatility and/or flexibility of the device, e.g., by allowing the collaborative/simultaneous control of local/remote applications, Lv ¶ 15, including multimedia remote applications, in a quick/easy manner, while keeping a local device lightweight, Jacobsen Claim 1, Jacobsen ¶¶ 9 and 61.
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim(s) 14 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the electronic device in claim 4, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv (US 20230221967 A1) in view of Heydlauf (US 20150208206 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mir; Abraham et al. (hereinafter Mir – US 20110138314 A1).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lv further teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to:
identify a plurality of applications which is executable on the external electronic device, (identifying multiple active remote applications installed on a remote desktop, some of which are as represented by icons on task bar 316, ¶ 36)
select, based on a predefined condition (currently active), a subset of the plurality of applications which are executable on the external electronic device, (in some embodiments, only the currently active applications are represented by icons, ¶ 36 and fig. 3)
and display, in [a] task bar area of the display (task bar 316), a row of second objects (active app icons) indicating the selected subset of the plurality of applications which are executable on the external electronic device. (in some embodiments, only the currently active applications are represented by icons, ¶ 36 and fig. 3)
Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Mir teaches:
that the task bar area is “the” task bar area of claim 1, which displays the row of a first set of objects indicating a plurality of [local] applications executable by the electronic device (a dock, acting as a taskbar, the display of multiple active remote app icons [406] together with local icon(s), ¶ 116 and fig. 4F. The dock acts as a type of taskbar because it displays icons of active apps functions, as it is interpreted as being able to launch, shows, and/or switch between, actively running programs).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include that the task bar area is “the” task bar area of claim 1, which also the row of a first set of objects indicating a plurality of applications executable by the electronic device, as taught by Mir.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the device by reducing user confusion when interacting with similar local and remote applications, Mir ¶ 115.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv (US 20230221967 A1) in view of Heydlauf (US 20150208206 A1) and Mir (US 20110138314 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Reichling; Stewart (hereinafter Reichling – US 20170244779 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Mir further teaches:
wherein the predefined condition (based on application) for selecting (grouping) the subset of the plurality of applications includes a type of information (e.g., word processing and calendar type of information) to be output by the external electronic device (in some embodiments the taskbar grouping of buttons are based on type of application, ¶ 4, which implies that the information output is also of the type for the application)
Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Reichling teaches:
that the type of output of information is “according to a type of the external electronic device” (application instructions, provided by a creator based on display format, enable a media device to generate distinct user interfaces [the type of output information] tailored to specific hardware, such as televisions, smartphones, or computers [is “according to a type of the external electronic device”], ¶ 71).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include that the type of output of information is “according to a type of the external electronic device”, as taught by Reichling.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility of the device’s by adapting the applications’ output to be compatible with multiple types of devices, Reichling ¶¶ 71 and 78.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv (US 20230221967 A1) in view of Heydlauf (US 20150208206 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Mir; Abraham et al. (hereinafter Mir – US 20110138314 A1) and Reichling; Stewart (hereinafter Reichling – US 20170244779 A1).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Lv further teaches:
further comprising:
identifying a plurality of applications which is executable on the external electronic device; (identifying multiple active remote applications installed on a remote desktop, some of which are as represented by icons on task bar 316, ¶ 36)
selecting, based on a predefined condition (currently active), a subset of the plurality of applications which are executable on the external electronic device; (in some embodiments, only the currently active applications are represented by icons, ¶ 36 and fig. 3)
and displaying, in [a] task bar area of the display (task bar 316), a row of second objects indicating the selected subset of the plurality of applications which are executable on the external electronic device, (in some embodiments, only the currently active applications are represented by icons, ¶ 36 and fig. 3)
Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Mir teaches:
that the task bar area is “the” task bar area of claim 1, which displays the row of a first set of objects indicating a plurality of [local] applications executable by the electronic device (a dock, acting as a taskbar, the display of multiple active remote app icons [406] together with local icon(s), ¶ 116 and fig. 4F. The dock acts as a type of taskbar because it displays icons of active apps functions, as it is interpreted as being able to launch, shows, and/or switch between, actively running programs).
and wherein the predefined condition for selecting the subset of the plurality of applications includes a type of information to be output by the external electronic device (in some embodiments the taskbar grouping of buttons are based on type of application, ¶ 4, which implies that the information output is also of the type for the application)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include that the task bar area is “the” task bar area of claim 1, which also the row of a first set of objects indicating a plurality of applications executable by the electronic device and wherein the predefined condition for selecting the subset of the plurality of applications includes a type of information to be output by the external electronic device, as taught by Mir.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the device by reducing user confusion when interacting with similar local and remote applications, Mir ¶ 115.
Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Reichling teaches:
that the type of output of information is “according to a type of the external electronic device” (application instructions, provided by a creator based on display format, enable a media device to generate distinct user interfaces [the type of output information] tailored to specific hardware, such as televisions, smartphones, or computers [is “according to a type of the external electronic device”], ¶ 71).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include that the type of output of information is “according to a type of the external electronic device”, as taught by Reichling.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility of the device’s by adapting the applications’ output to be compatible with multiple types of devices, Reichling ¶¶ 71 and 78.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv (US 20230221967 A1) in view of Heydlauf (US 20150208206 A1) and Hicks (US 20140253467 A1), as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Shappir; Dan et al. (hereinafter Shappir – US 20060230156 A1) and You; Cheonkum et al. (hereinafter You – US 20230146478 A1).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Lv further teaches:
display, on the display, in a popup form, information related to the application being output from the external electronic device (the window of the remote desktop including the remote application 322, ¶ 43 and figs. 3-4. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that Lv’s application/execution window is in a popup form, because, in a broadest reasonable sense, any window displayed over other items can be considered a popup window because it appears on top of the main screen or content)
Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Shappir teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to:
identify whether a first user input is detected on the at least one item displayed in the task bar area of the display, (activating a local stub window's taskbar icon triggers a message that brings the corresponding remote window to the foreground within the remote virtual desktop, ¶ 45)
that the displaying the information in the popup form occurs “in case that the first user input is detected” on the at least one item displayed in the task bar area, (bringing the corresponding remote window to the foreground within the remote virtual desktop, ¶ 45)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: identify whether a first user input is detected on the at least one item displayed in the task bar area of the display, that the displaying the information in the popup form occurs “in case that the first user input is detected” on the at least one item displayed in the task bar area, as taught by Shappir.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order improve the usability of the device, allowing for simultaneously displaying remote and local windows using icons in a single area, Shappir ¶¶ 9 and 45.
Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but You teaches:
identify whether a second user input is detected on the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device, and in case that the second user input is detected, enter a multi-window arrangement mode (activating an icon for switching to a multi-window mode, ¶¶ 14, and 197-199, figs. 4-5 and fig. 9C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include identify whether a second user input is detected on the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device, and in case that the second user input is detected, enter a multi-window arrangement mode, as taught by You.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve device’s efficiency/usability by quickly configuring/providing a multi-window layout by use of as simple operation, You ¶ 85.
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Lv, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: after entering the multi-window arrangement mode, identify whether a third user input is detected on the information displayed in a popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device, (Lv teaches control window includes multiple control elements, such scroll bar 330, status bar 328, minimize, maximize and close window buttons, and toolbar 326, ¶ 36 and fig. 4, for input/interaction with the remote application. You teaches receiving interactions in split screen mode, e.g., dragging and dropping items into the split screen sections, ¶¶ 120 and 160-163 and figs. 8B-8C)
in case that the third user input is detected, transmit, to the external electronic device, a signal for requesting transmission of the information related to the application being output in the external electronic device, in response to the signal for requesting the transmission, receive the information related to the application being output in the external electronic device from the external electronic device through the communication circuit, and output the information related to the application, based on the received information related to the application being output in the external electronic device. (the local client constantly monitors the user interfaces action and requests updated display parameters display information changes, e.g., Lv ¶¶ 59-60 and 73-74 and Lv fig. 6:608,612,618,620,624. The multi-window arrangement mode is taught by You, as explained for claim 7)
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Lv, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: after entering the multi-window arrangement mode, identify whether a fourth user input is detected in the execution screen of the second application being displayed on the display, (Lv teaches that a window of the active remote application 322 [execution screen] is displayed, ¶ 39, and figs. 3 and 4, that there are multiple applications that can be installed and/or running at a remote desktop [second application], ¶ 14 and fig 3:314, and a user can switch from to another application, ¶ 73 and figs. 3-4 and fig. 6, that is, effectively displaying a second application an application control window includes multiple control elements, such scroll bar 330, status bar 328, minimize, maximize and close window buttons, and toolbar 326, ¶ 36 and fig. 4, for input/interaction with the remote application. You teaches receiving interactions in split screen mode, e.g., dragging and dropping items into the split screen sections, ¶¶ 120 and 160-163 and figs. 8B-8C)
in case that the fourth user input is detected, transmit information related to the second application to the external electronic device through the communication circuit, and display, in the task bar area of the display, an object indicating the second application and at least one item for controlling at least one function related to the second application. (the local client constantly monitors the user interfaces action and requests updated display parameters display information changes, e.g., Lv ¶¶ 59-60 and 73-74 and Lv fig. 6:608,612,618,620,624. The multi-window arrangement mode is taught by You, as explained for claim 7. As explained for claim 3, a control window [least one item for controlling at least one function] is displayed adjacent to the second object [icon 320], and this control window includes multiple control elements, such scroll bar 330, status bar 328, minimize, maximize and close window buttons, and toolbar 326, ¶ 36 and fig. 4)
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim(s) 16 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the electronic device in claim 7, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claim(s) 17 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the electronic device in claim 8, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claim(s) 18 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the electronic device in claim 9, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv (US 20230221967 A1) in view of Heydlauf (US 20150208206 A1), Hicks (US 20140253467 A1), Shappir (US 20060230156 A1) and You (US 20230146478 A1), as applied to claims 9 and 18 above, and further in view of Bogia, Douglas P (hereinafter Bogia – US 20020091662 A1).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Lv, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Bogia teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: in case that the fourth user input is detected, identify whether the second application is an application supported by the external electronic device, in case that the second application is identified as the application supported by the external electronic device, apply a first visual effect to the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device, and display the information, and in case that the second application is identified as an application which is not supported by the external electronic device, apply a second visual effect to the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output by the external electronic device, and display the information (a working file application visually signals components of incompatible applications, such as through shading or an "X," and restricts their use with the current file, ¶ 27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Lv to include wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: in case that the fourth user input is detected, identify whether the second application is an application supported by the external electronic device, in case that the second application is identified as the application supported by the external electronic device, apply a first visual effect to the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output from the external electronic device, and display the information, and in case that the second application is identified as an application which is not supported by the external electronic device, apply a second visual effect to the information displayed in the popup form and related to the application being output by the external electronic device, and display the information, as taught by Bogia.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the device by visually indicating incompatibility, Bogia ¶ 27.
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Claim(s) 19 is directed to a method for performing the functions of the electronic device in claim 10, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Vullings; Peter US 20130290395 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a client device that can operate a multimedia application remotely, ¶¶ 31 and 80 and fig. 10.
Nguyen; Nguyen Anh US 20210174459 A1, is pertinent to claim 2 for disclosing a home button in the task bar area, ¶ 177 and fig. 12B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights