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 .
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Application filed on 10/21/2024 with effective filing date of 5/10/2022 based on provisional application 63/340226 filed on 5/10/2022 and PCT application PCT/US2023/021297 filed on 5/8/2023.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-23 are pending in the application, of which claims 1-12, 22 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 13-21, and 23 are considered.
Claims 13, and 23 are independent claims.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, 22, drawn to a method (and machine) of connecting two devices, of a first device receiving a streamed application running on the connected second device, and controlling the GUI of the remote display of the application on the first device to enable user to interact with the remote application, classified in G06F9/452, G06F3/04817, G06F3/0482, H04W76/19.
II. Claims 13-21, 23, drawn to a method (and machine) of connecting two devices, of the second device generating an encoded display of an application running on the second device, streaming the encoded display of the application to the connected first device, receiving user inputs from the first device, and taking action in response to received user input, classified in G06F9/452, G06F3/04817, H04L65/612.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination of Invention I has separate utility such as in circumstances it would be desirable for a user to share and stream a local application running on the user’s device with a remote device of another user to enable another user to operate with the application on the remote device. Invention II has separate utility such as in circumstances where it would be desirable for a user to view and operate the GUI of an application streamed from a remote device of a second user. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) and/or the prior art applicable to the one subcombination would not likely be applicable to other; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112(a).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Amy Florio (Reg. No. 81858) on 7/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group II, claims 13-21, 23. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-12, 22 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 10/21/2024, 9/30/2025, 3/5/2026, 5/19/2026, 5/27/2026 comply/complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has/have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has/have been considered as to the merits.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 13-21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi (US Pub 20220286504, hereinafter Qi), in view of Pieper et al. (US Pub 20170024100, hereinafter Pieper).
Per claim 23, Qi teaches:
A computing device configured to stream applications to a remote device, the computing device comprising: (abstract: an application sharing method);
one or more processors; ([0082] Fig. 11 processor 1110);
one or more user inputs operatively coupled to the one or more processors; and ([0082] Fig. 11 user input unit 1107);
a communication module operatively coupled to the one or more processors, the communication module being configured to: ([0082] Fig. 11 network module 1102, radio frequency unit 1101);
facilitate pairing of the computing device with the remote device via at least one wireless connection, wherein the pairing allows the computing device and the remote device to directly communicate, and ([0054] device scanning via Bluetooth is performed on the first electronic device (computing device), device information of a second electronic device (remote device) is acquired, and the two devices are connected/paired; [0063] device A (computing device) can then directly communicate to device C (remote device) to share its screen/application with device C as shown in Fig. 5 & Fig. 7);
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
generate an ([0063-0064] Fig. 5-9: Fig. 8 shows device A (computing device) prepares a virtual screen in the background to include the interface of application X in the virtual screen, to be shared with device C (remote device); Fig. 7 shows a prompt on device C (remote device) where an application is being shared from device A (computing device), Fig. 9 shows the running/remote interface of application X from device A being displayed on the remote device C);
cause the communication module to transmit, via the at least one wireless connection, the ([0063-0064] Fig. 7-8 show that the interface of application X is shared from device A (computing device) to device C (remote) to cause remote display of the application X as shown in Fig. 9; [0062] when device C (remote) is near device A (computing device), connection can be made through WIFI);
receive, from the remote device via the communication module, one or more user inputs associated with the application based on presentation of virtualized remote display, based on the the application on the remote device; and ([0065] both devices can view and use the first application at the same time; thus user inputs with the remote display of the application can be received on the local running application);
take an action associated with the application based on the received one or more user inputs. ([0065] both the device can view and use the first application at the same time, thus user interaction on device C (remote) would cause action on the application’s local device A (second client device)).
Although Qi teaches remote sharing of an application interface that enable a user to interact with the remote application interface ([0061-0065]), Qi does not explicitly teach the remote display of the application is encoded to be streamed from the local device to the remote device; Pieper teaches:
… generate an encoded virtualized remote display of an application …; ([0049, 0083] the shared application can be captured directly from graphics controller, where individual window frame is encoded as a video stream to be transmitted together with meta data; audio data is also similarly encoded and distributed; also see claim 1)
cause … the encoded virtualized remote display of the application to the remote device via streaming; ([0050] user B’s device (remote) can receive the encoded video stream of the shared application window in real time; also see claim 1);
receive, … user inputs … based on the encoded virtualized remote display; and take an action …; ([0055-0059] user B’s remote interaction with the streamed application, such as pointer related interaction can be transmitted to all users in the same session, and clicking would only be applied to the device which is sharing the window, such as executing a click on user’s A’s computer; also see claim 1).
Pieper and Qi are analogous art because Pieper also teaches sharing application remotely in a collaborative environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Pieper and Qi before him/her, to modify the teachings of Qi to include the teachings of Pieper so that the application shared remotely can be streamed to remote device by encoding application frames. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable applications to be shared in a collaborative session, where users are enabled to show remote and local application windows in the same view at positions and with sizes which are relatively the same despite different screen resolutions, and enable users to interact with remote and local applications coherently and without a noticeable difference, enhancing user experiences (Pieper [0051-0052]).
Per claim 13, Qi teaches:
An application streaming method, comprising: (abstract: an application sharing method);
pairing, via at least one wireless connection, a second client device to a first client device, wherein the pairing allows the first client device and the second client device to directly communicate; ([0054] device scanning via Bluetooth is performed on the first electronic device (second client device/local), device information of a second electronic device (first client device/remote) is acquired, and the two devices are connected/paired; [0063] device A (second client device) can then directly communicate to device C (first client device) to share its screen/application with device C as shown in Fig. 5 & Fig. 7);
generating, by one or more processors of the second client device, an ([0063-0064] Fig. 5-9: Fig. 8 shows device A (second client device/local) prepares a virtual screen in the background to include the interface of application X in the virtual screen, to be shared with device C (first client device/remote); Fig. 7 shows a prompt on device C (first/remote) where an application is being shared from device A (second/local), Fig. 9 shows the running/remote interface of application X from device A being displayed on the remote device C);
transmitting, via the at least one wireless connection, the ([0063-0064] Fig. 7-8 show that the interface of application X is shared from device A (second/local) to device C (first/remote) to cause remote display of the application X as shown in Fig. 9; [0062] when device C (first/remote) is near device A (second/local), connection can be made through WIFI);
receiving, by the second client device, one or more user inputs associated with the application based on presentation of the application via a virtualized remote display based on the ([0065] both devices can view and use the first application at the same time, thus device A(second/local) can receive user inputs from device C(first/remote));
taking, by the one or more processors of the second client device, an action associated with the application based on the received one or more user inputs. ([0065] both devices can view and use the first application at the same time, thus application running on device A (second/local) can take action with received user inputs from device C (first/remote)).
Although Qi teaches remote sharing of an application interface that takes user interaction on the remote application interface ([0061-0065]), Qi does not explicitly teach the remote display of the application is encoded to be streamed from the local device to the remote device; Pieper teaches:
… generate an encoded virtualized remote display of an application …; ([0049] the content of the shared application window can be captured directly from graphics controller, and individual window can be encoded as the frames in a video stream to be transmitted together with meta data; also see claim 1)
transmitting … the encoded virtualized remote display of the application from the second client device to the first client device via streaming; ([0050] user B’s device (remote) can receive the encoded video stream of the shared application window in real time; also see claim 1);
receive, … user inputs … based on the encoded virtualized remote display; and taking … an action …; ([0055-0059] user B’s remote interaction with the streamed application, such as pointer related interaction can be transmitted to all users in the same session, and clicking would only be applied to the device which is sharing the window, such as executing a click on user’s A’s computer).
Pieper and Qi are analogous art because Pieper also teaches sharing application remotely in a collaborative environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Pieper and Qi before him/her, to modify the teachings of Qi to include the teachings of Pieper so that the application shared remotely can be streamed to remote device by encoding application frames. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable applications to be shared in a collaborative session, where users are enabled to show remote and local application windows in the same view at positions and with sizes which are relatively the same despite different screen resolutions, and enable users to interact with remote and local applications coherently and without a noticeable difference, enhancing user experiences (Pieper [0051-0052]).
Per claim 14, Qi-Pieper teach all the limitations of claim 13, and further teach:
prior to the transmitting, the one or more processors of the second client device encoding the virtualized remote display of the application. (Pieper [0049] the application window is captured directly from the graphics controller and individual frame encoded as a video stream, and transmitted).
Per claim 15, Qi-Pieper teach all the limitations of claim 13, and further teach:
wherein taking the action associated with the application includes updating the encoded virtualized remote display of the application. (Qi [0065] both devices can view and use the application at the same time, where user input from the remote device can cause action to happen on the local device where the application is running, and interface is updated on both device; Pieper [0049, 0055-0059] application window is encoded as frames of a video stream and transmitted to remote device, where user can still interact with the remote application window, i.e. clicking would be applied to the device which is sharing the window).
Per claim 16, Qi-Pieper teach all the limitations of claim 13, and further teach:
further comprising generating, by the one or more processors of the second client device, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes at least one of a permissions prompt to facilitate the pairing, or an actual display of the application for presentation to a user.(Qi [0062-0065] Fig. 6-9: Fig. 7 shows a GUI of permission prompt as part of the connection/pairing process; Fig. 9 shows the shared remote application interface generated from the second/local device).
Per claim 17, Qi-Pieper teach all the limitations of claim 16, and further teach:
wherein the virtualized remote display generated by the one or more processors of the second client device has a different visual appearance than the actual display of the application. (Pieper [0037, 0053-0054] user/server can manipulate the size of the window to fit the need where the local display may not have the same size as the remote display application window).
Per claim 18, Qi-Pieper teach all the limitations of claim 13, and further teach:
wherein the encoded virtualized remote display is generated by the one or more processors of the second client device when a display device of the second client device is in a sleep mode. (Pieper [0011] the remote shared application window will continue to display even when the computing device is turned off).
Per claim 19, Qi-Pieper teach all the limitations of claim 13, and further teach:
wherein the encoded virtualized remote display is generated by the one or more processors of the second client device while another application is presented on a display device of the second client device. (Pieper: [0032-0033] Fig. 2 shows device user A (second/local) is sharing application B, while another local application C is presented on the display (of the second/local device)).
Per claim 20, Qi-Pieper teach all the limitations of claim 13, and further teach:
in response to termination of the streaming, the one or more processors of the second client device caching an image of the virtualized remote display of the application.(Pieper [0069-0073] in response to incompatible bandwidth/capabilities of remote device (termination/interruption), key image data can be sent (cached) in lower resolution or converted to text).
Per claim 21, Qi-Pieper teach all the limitations of claim 13, and further teach:
the at least one wireless connection includes a first wireless connection and a second wireless connection distinct from the first wireless connection; (Qi [0054, 0061-0062] device scanning before connection can be made on different wireless connections such as Bluetooth, and WiFi);
the pairing occurs via the first wireless connection; and (Qi [0054] scanning of devices to be connected can happen via Bluetooth connection);
transmitting of the encoded virtualized remote display of the application from the second client device occurs via the second wireless connection. (Qi [0062] connection between the devices can be made through WiFi P2P to enable application sharing).
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights