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 . Claims 1-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The rejections of Claims 17-18 in view of 35 USC §101 are withdrawn.
The rejection of Claim 10 in view of 35 USC §112(b) is withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Jia (US Patent No. 9,247,029 teaches the claimed App window (fig. 1 @11) which shares a portion of the user interface for an application running on a remote device with a remote user as remote content screen (fig. 1 @12). Local user input is transmitted to the remote device, updating the portion of the remote content (fig. 1 @11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia (US Patent No. 9,247,029).
Regarding Claims 1, and 16-18 (Currently Amended), Jia teaches a computer-implemented method for providing remote-support for a remote device with a local device, the computer-implemented method comprising the following steps, a data processing system comprising, a computer program product comprising computer executable instructions recorded in a non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, perform:
a) providing the remote device [fig. 1 @120] having a remote screen [fig. 1 @13];
b) providing the local device [fig. 1 @110] having a local screen [fig. 1 @170];
c) providing a remote desktop software [col 5 lines 40-429, “, a moving window session can be considered a particular type of remote desktop session”, col 38 lines 17-20, “The components of the client device 200 and/or the components of the host device 250 can be, or can include, any type of hardware and/or software”] configured to provide an app window [fig. 1 @11, col 3 lines 54-58, “target display area 11 outlines a portion (e.g., a relatively small portion, a subset) of the host image 10 as illustrated by the dashed line. The host image 10 can be an image of, for example, a user interface of the application 16 operating at the host device 120”] of the remote desktop software on the remote device [fig. 1 @120], wherein the app window is configured to
i) provide a communication channel [col 8 lines 1-4, “the communication link 2 can be, for example, a wireless communication link, a wired communication link, a network communication link”] between the remote device [fig. 1 @120] and the local device [fig. 1 @110],
ii) transmit at least a part [fig. 1 @11] of any content [fig. 1 @10] of the remote screen [fig. 1 @13] as a remote content [contents of portion of fig. 1 @10 bounded by fig. 1 @11] via the communication channel [fig. 1 @2] from the remote device [fig. 1 @120] to the local device [fig. 1 @110] and display the remote content on the local screen [col 3 lines 45-55, “a client image 12 of (e.g., derived from) a host image 10 associated with the application 16 operating at the host device 120 is sent via the communication link 2 to the client device 110 based on a position (e.g., an x-y position) of a target display area 11 of the host image 10. The client image 12 is displayed (e.g., rendered) in a client display area 14 within a display 170 of the client device 110. In some implementations, the client image 12 can be referred to as a window image, as an image of the target display area 11, or as a captured image of the target display area 11”],
iii) receive user inputs on the local device [fig. 1 @110] in relation to the remote content [col 3 lines 31-40, “a user interface associated with the application 16 can be generated at the host device 120 operating the application 16. The client device 110 (e.g., the input device 115 of the client device 110) can be used by a user to interact with the user interface of the application 16 and input values representing the interactions can be sent to the host device 120 via the communication link 2 during a moving window session. Images of the user interface, and interactions with the user interface (which can result in changes to the user interface), can be streamed, via the communication link 2, to the client device 110 where they can be displayed at the client device 110. In some implementations, the stream of images can, for example, define, or can be used to define, images in a video stream”, col 5 lines 25-39, “Portions of the user interface associated with the word processing application can be displayed (e.g., viewed) at the display 170 of the client device 110 as images (e.g., client image 12) based on a location of a target display area (e.g., target display area 11). A user of the client device 110 may interact with the word processing application using the input device 115 via the portions of the user interface that are displayed at the client device 110 … the user interface associated with the word processing application can be updated, and updated images can be sent to and displayed at the client device 110”],
and iv) re-display [construed as update fig. 1 @11] at least part of the remote content already present on the remote screen in the app window on the remote device [col 5 lines 36-39, “in response to the interaction(s), the user interface associated with the word processing application can be updated, and updated images can be sent to and displayed at the client device 110”].
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, 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Bosnjakovic (US 2020/0133694). All reference is to Jia unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Jia teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein
values representing the user inputs [col x lines x-y, A user of the client device 110 may interact with the word processing application using the input device 115 via the portions of the user interface that are displayed at the client device 110 … In response to the interaction(s), the user interface associated with the word processing application can be updated, and updated images can be sent to and displayed at the client device 110”] received on the local device [fig. 1 @110] is displayed together with the part of the remote content [fig. 1 @11 construed as containing some portion of application 16 user interface] in the app window [fig. 1 @11] on the remote device [fig. 1 @120]
Jia does not teach the values constitute a representation of the user inputs received on the local device is displayed together with the part of the remote content in the app window on the remote device
Bosnjakovic teaches a representation of the user inputs [¶0082, “The desktop event monitor 132A may also be configured to identify or detect mouse or cursor events (e.g., mouse clicks, cursor motion, etc.) initiated by user input to the local desktop 102B”] received on the local device is displayed together with the part of the remote content in the app window on the remote device [¶0083, “The desktop event monitor 132B may identify the transmitted event(s) and the desktop event monitor 132B may implement the event(s) at the remote desktop 102A (e.g., by simulating user input to the remote desktop 102A and sending one or more commands to the operating system or application, etc.), “the desktop event monitor 132A may use mouse click events from the desktop event monitor 132B to generate corresponding events at the remote system 116, such as those associated with applications and/or application windows (e.g., to launch or close application windows, etc.)”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the concept of displaying a graphical representation of local user inputs on a remote device being controlled, as taught by Bosnjakovic, into the computer-implemented method, taught by Jia, in order to provide a remote user to see exactly which inputs were performed by the remote user.
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Jia in view of Bosnjakovic teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 2, wherein the representation of the user inputs displayed on the remote device comprises
a position marker showing located user inputs [Bosnjakovic: ¶0083 teaches cursor motion event implemented on remote device 116 based on cursor movement event on 118].
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Jia in view of Bosnjakovic teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 3, wherein
the located user inputs are mouse events [Bosnjakovic: ¶0083] and/or touch gestures [alternate limitation not addressed].
Regarding Claim 7 (Currently Amended), Jia teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1
Jia does not teach wherein (iv) re-display the remote content on the remote device comprises displaying the remote content in a split-screen configuration together with the remaining content of the remote screen
Bosnjakovic teaches displaying the remote content [fig. 3 @320] in a split-screen configuration together with the remaining content of the remote screen [fig. 3 @318]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the concept of displaying a graphical representation of local user inputs on a remote device being controlled, as taught by Bosnjakovic, into the computer-implemented method, taught by Jia, in order to separate the graphical user interface being manipulated by the local user from the graphical user interface usable by the remote user.
Regarding Claim 14 (Original), Jia teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1
Jia does not teach the app window is overlaid semi-transparent over other content of the remote screen
Bosnjakovic teaches the app window [fig. 1 @106A] is overlaid semi-transparent [¶0060, “while a system desktop is typically opaque, individual windows and/or other desktop elements may be at least partially transparent … the system area 206A and/or the client area 206B of the application window 106A may be semi-transparent, such as when the application window 106A is not an active window”] over other content of the remote screen [fig. 1 @102A]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the concept of displaying a transparent graphical representation of local user input on top of the opaque remote GUI, as taught by Bosnjakovic, into the computer-implemented method, taught by Jia, in order provide the remote user with a direct comparison of the inputs made locally and the remote users displayed GUI and enable the remote user to be trained on a complex series of operations.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Bosnjakovic and Kalu (EP 2509292). All reference is to Jia unless indicated otherwise.
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Jia in view of Bosnjakovic teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 2
Jia in view of Bosnjakovic does not teach the representation of user inputs comprises text representing keyboard inputs from the local device
Kalu teaches keyboard input [fig. 1 @104] from the local device [fig. 1 @102]
represented as text [fig. 1 @134] on the remote device [fig. 1 @130]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mimic keyboard input on a local device as text on a remote device, as taught by Kalu, into the computer-implemented method, taught by Jia in view of Bosnjakovic, in order to inform a remote user of keyboard inputs made by a local user when the remote device is being controlled by the local device which allows the remote user to monitor the remote control of their device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Yajima (US 2024/0320795). All reference is to Jia unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Jia teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1
Jia does not teach the app window is a picture-in-picture player partially overlaying the content of the remote screen
Yajima teaches an app window is a picture-in-picture player [fig. 1 @41y] partially overlying the content [fig. 1 @41x] of the remote screen [fig. 1 @24]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display an app window as a picture-in-picture on the remote terminal, a taught by Yajima, into the computer-implemented method, taught by Jia, in order to increase the amount of information displayed in the app window by removing the window frame.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Haizmann (US 2022/0057923). All reference is to Jia unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Jia teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1
Jia does not teach the remote content re-displayed in the app window is only a partial section of the content of the remote screen and wherein the partial section follows a localized user input received on the local device
Haizmann teaches a remote content [fig. 1 @36] re-displayed in the app window [fig. 1 @34] is only a partial section of the content of the remote screen [fig. 1 @14] and wherein
the partial section [fig. 1 @34] follows a localized user input [fig. 4 @S7] received on the local device [¶0080]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display a partial amount of remote screen content based on a user input received on a local device, as taught by Haizmann, into the computer-implemented method, taught by Jia, in order to reduce the amount of screen content to that content selected by a local user thereby improving the quality of content displayed on smaller size screens.
Regarding Claim 9 (Original), Jia in view of Haizmann teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 8, wherein
the partial section centers the localized user input received from the local device [Haizmann: fig. 2 illustrates frame (fig. 2 @36), moved by user input, centered on remote display fig. 2 @24].
Regarding Claim 10 (Currently Amended), Jia teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1
Jia does not teach the partial section executes a smooth and/or delayed movement from a position of origin towards a newly received mouse pointer or touch event position
Haizmann teaches a partial section [fig. 2 @34] executes a smooth and/or delayed movement from a position of origin towards a newly received mouse pointer or touch event position [¶0080, “the user may … correct the position of the frame before starting the transmission”]
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia in view of Bindouski (US 2024/0192910). All reference is to Jia unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 15 (Original), Jia teaches the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1
Jia does not teach the remote content of the remote screen is transmitted to the local device using screen broadcasting and/or wherein the re-displaying of the remote content comprises copying a broadcasting data stream on the remote device, augmenting this broadcasting data stream on the remote device with a representation of the user inputs received from the local device and feeding a resulting data stream to the app window
Bindouski teaches the remote content of the remote screen is transmitted to the local device using screen broadcasting [¶0021, “Another scenario for the application of the claimed invention involves the use of a small-sized device equipped with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi interfaces with the function of relaying smartphone screen broadcast data to the control computer and the function of converting IP manipulation data coming to the HID interface of the smartphone from the peripheral input device of the remote control computer”]
and/or wherein the re-displaying of the remote content comprises copying a broadcasting data stream on the remote device, augmenting this broadcasting data stream on the remote device with a representation of the user inputs received from the local device and feeding a resulting data stream to the app window [alternate limitation not addressed]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use screen broadcasting to transfer content of a remote device as taught by Bindouski, into the computer-implemented method, taught by Jia, in order to use the built-in screen broadcast function of a mobile computer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The Examiner can normally be reached 1100-1800 EST. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622