DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
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.
3. Claims 1 – 7, 9, 10, and 12, 14, 16 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magazine (US Publication Number 2017/0244800) in view of Raju (US Patent Number 9,807,177) further in view of Weinberger et al. (US Publication Number 2014/0049462, hereinafter “Weinberger”).
4. As per claims 1, 9, and 10, Magazine teaches a peripheral device connection control method, device, and non-transitory storage medium (non-transitory medium seen in paragraph 43) comprising: in response to a computer (computer 200, figure 3 seen in light of figures 2 and 4) switching (focus switches between 152a and 152b, figure 2 based on requests) to a first operation interface (operations of print or scan, 178, figure 2) of a plurality of operation interfaces (operation interfaces consist of the cloud 154 application layer along with a plurality of client cloud devices 152a/b further elaborated in figure 4 which shows the vast local networked devices, paragraph 40), establishing a connection between an operating system (operating system 216, figure 2, paragraph 49) of a background device corresponding to the first operation interface and a target peripheral device (background device is the next in line to have its request serviced paragraph 50, and the target peripheral device can be seen in figure 184, figure 2), wherein the target peripheral device comprises a peripheral device connected with a first communication interface of the computer (connectivity through the peripheral service, paragraph 31).
Magazine does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to a focus of a computer switching establishing a connection between a first operation interface and a target peripheral device; wherein the focus is an area on an output device of the computer that a user pays attention to and the focus switches between the plurality of operation interfaces presented on the output device.
However, Raju discloses in response (redirection method 400, figure 4) to a focus of a computer (client 120, figure 1) switching to a first operation interface (active window monitored at step 404, figure 4) of a plurality of operation interfaces (multiple remote desktop sessions run from a single client 120 determines current active mode step 402 and polls for a change at 404 which is detected by querying the client OS and the current active session being switch to a new one), establishing a connection between an operating system of a background device (server 140, figure 1) corresponding to the first operation interface and a target peripheral device (USB device 130, figure 1, when detected change client 120 resets device 130 at step 406 and redirects it to the current active mode at step 408, notifying server 140 so that virtual USB enumerator 214 creates virtual USB device for the newly active session, figures 4 and 5), wherein the target peripheral device comprises a peripheral device connected with a first communication interface (210 and ports it enumerates, figure 2) of the computer (device 130 is a USB device locally connected to client 120 by USB and enumerated by hub driver 210, which manages the USB hubs and their ports, figures 1 and 2).
Magazine and Raju are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of remote device management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Magazine and Raju before him or her, to modify the interfacing of Magazine to include the connectivity of Raju because it would enhance a more automatic connectivity.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance device connectivity functionality (column 1, lines 15 - 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Raju with Magazine to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
Magazine/Raju does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the focus is an area on an output device of the computer that a user pays attention to and the focus switches between the plurality of operation interfaces presented on the output device.
However, Weinberger discloses wherein the focus (focus detection, paragraphs 16 and 17) is an area on an output device (display 204, figure 2) of the computer (client 102, figure 1) that a user pays attention to (focus selects a window and making it active based on user’s attention, the coordinates of user’s gaze are determined, the GUI element at those coordinates is identified and where the user looks at it long enough that window is raised to the foreground and given focus, figures 2 and 5, paragraph 37) and the focus switches between the plurality of operation interfaces (windows 206, figure 2) presented on the output device (display 204 carries one or more windows 206 only one of which is the active window the user is working in while others in background, where gazed at element is a window behind another focus is granted to that window and comes to the foreground and becomes active window, paragraphs 36 – 40, figures 2, 5, and 6).
Magazine/Raju and Weinberger are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of user interactive functionality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Magazine/Raju and Weinberger before him or her, to modify the connectivity of Magazine/Raju to include the user interfacing of Weinberger because it would enhance the application transition.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance user interface experience (paragraph 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Weinberger with Magazine/Raju to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
5. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 2, 15, and 16, Magazine teaches a method, wherein the plurality of operation interfaces comprise at least one of a local desktop, a cloud desktop, and a cloud application interface (figure 4 exemplifies at least one of the plurality of interfaces in the form of client/database/server).
6. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 3, Magazine teaches a method, further comprising: disconnecting the connection between an operating system of a background device corresponding to the second operation interface and the target peripheral device, and establishing the connection between the operating system of the background device corresponding to the first operation interface and the target peripheral device (paragraphs 38 – 40, the target device is not consistently connected to the background device until it is selected by the user upon which the connection is made until the job is completed, figure 10 upon which the “connect” state becomes a disconnected state).
7. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 4 and 21, Magazine teaches a method, further comprising: disconnecting the connection between the operating system of the background device corresponding to the second operation interface and the target peripheral device when the target peripheral device is in an idle state (sleep state of the peripheral for switching peripheral devices, paragraph 31).
8. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 5 and 20, Magazine teaches a method, wherein establishing the connection between the operating system of the background device corresponding to the first operation interface and the target peripheral device comprises at least one of followings: redirecting protocol data sent by the target peripheral device to the operating system of the background device corresponding to the first operation interface (paragraph 30); and redirecting a protocol request received by the background device based on the first operation interface to the target peripheral device (paragraph 31, protocol handling is interpreted as the target peripheral device driver handling).
9. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 6, Magazine teaches a method, further comprising: based on a selection operation of a user, determining the target peripheral device from at least one peripheral device connected with a first communication interface of the computer (user selection via figures 6 – 8).
10. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 7, Magazine teaches a method, wherein the first communication interface is a master-slave architecture communication interface (master 156/slave 184, figure 2 architecture).
11. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 12, Magazine teaches a method, wherein the method is applied to a peripheral device driver module (drivers, 174, figure 2) or proxy module arranged on the computer.
12. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 13, Magazine teaches a method, wherein the focus is an area on an output device of the computer that a user pays attention to (GUI 118, figure 1, paragraph 37).
13. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 14, Magazine teaches a method, wherein the focus is an area where a cursor is activated (curse seen in figure 6, “Enter data here”).
14. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 17, Magazine teaches a method, wherein the local desktop is an operation interface provided by the operating system of the computer (computer operating system, paragraph 49).
15. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 18, Magazine teaches a method, wherein the cloud desktop and the cloud application interface are operation interfaces provided by an operating system of a remote server (252/254 cloud servers, figure 4).
16. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 19, Magazine teaches a method, wherein the background device corresponding to the first operation interface is a device for providing data for the first operation interface to provide user interaction service (GUI presented to user, figures 6 – 8).
17. Magazine modified by the teachings of Raju/Weinberger as seen in claim 1 above, as per claim 22, Magazine teaches a method, wherein a background operation state of the target peripheral device is determined by detecting activity data of the target peripheral device (activity detected at 170, figure 2).
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 7, 9, 10, and 12, 14, 16 – 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., connection is automatically established between operating system of the background device corresponding to the first operation interface and the target peripheral device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dow/Kaushik has teachings of remote connectivity and GUI handling.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURANGZEB HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8625. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM to 3 PM.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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.
AH
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights