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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
(1) Paragraph 48 of the Written Description mentions FIGS. 11 and 12, but the present application does not have a FIG. 11 or FIG. 12.
(2) FIGS. 6 and 9 are grayscale screenshots (i.e. black and white photographs), where 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1) requires “black and white drawings with solid black lines,” i.e., monochrome. The Applicant is remined that it previously filed clean line drawings of FIGS. 6 and 9 in both the parent and grandparent applications of the present application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claim 1 for having the following informality: the phrase “a second display mode that includes first icon tray adjacent thereto” is missing an article of speech between “includes” and “first icon tray.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0102549 A1 (“Mazzaferri”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0278534 A1 (“Thiyagarajan”), and further in view of TechSmith Corp., Snagit Online Help Guide Version 8.1 (February 7, 2007) (“TechSmith”) (an archived version, as it appeared on the publication date, is available at https://web.archive.org/web/20070207225331/http://download.techsmith.com/snagit/docs/onlinehelp/enu/snagit_help.pdf).
Claim 1
Mazzaferri teaches:
A system, comprising:
“Illustrated in FIG. 4 is a system,” Mazzaferri ¶ 90, which may be implemented using the hardware illustrated in FIGS. 1A–1C. See Mazzaferri ¶¶ 18–19.
a first display having a first display region;
The system of FIG. 4 includes “a native display 201 of the mobile device 102 on which application output generated by a resource 204 may be displayed.” Mazzaferri ¶ 90. Native display 201 corresponds to the claimed first display, while the application output generated by resource 204 (e.g., resource 204a of FIG. 2B) corresponds to the claimed first display region.
a first computer that drives the first display,
“The mobile device 102 may communicate with a native display 201 of the mobile device 102 on which application output generated by a resource 204 may be displayed.” Mazzaferri ¶ 90. Note that in this rejection, the claimed “first computer” is Mazzaferri’s “mobile device 102” (rather than remote computer 401).
the first computer to run collaboration software;
“The mobile device 102 may execute a windows management service 206.” Mazzaferri ¶ 90.
and a first mobile device to run a sharing application
As shown in FIG. 4, a remote computer 401 is also provided, and “[t]he remote computer 401 may execute a remoting client 410.” Mazzaferri ¶ 90.
The remote computer 401 is a first mobile device within the meaning of the claimed invention, because Mazzaferri discloses that examples of remote computer 401 include “a client, or any other computing machine,” Mazzaferri ¶ 92, and as shown in FIG. 1A, a client can include a mobile device such as client 102n. See also Mazzaferri ¶ 73 (describing the hardware that implements client devices may be one of several types of handheld computers, tablet computers, mobile telephones, etc.).
Remote computer 401 is able to display multiple instances of the resources 405A–N at once, because its physical display and the display generated by its software is much larger than that of the mobile device 102—which is sized to only display one resource 204a at a time. Mazzaferri FIG. 4. For example, “a native display screen space 310 corresponding to the native display 201 of the mobile computing device 102 [may have] a resolution of 320 pixels × 240 pixels,” whereas “an external display device 202 [has] a resolution of 1024 pixels × 768 pixels.” Mazzaferri ¶ 88.
wherein a wireless connection is established between the first mobile device and the first computer through the sharing application on the first mobile device and collaboration software on the first computer,
“The mobile device 102 may communicate with the remote computer 401 over a virtual channel,” and “the virtual channel may be established by both the window management service 206 [executing on the mobile computing device 102] and a remoting client 410 executing on the remote computer 401.” Mazzaferri ¶ 93.
The virtual channel “may be established over a network,” Mazzaferri ¶ 92, and the network (e.g., 104) may include “a wireless network; a wireline network; or a network 104 that includes a wireless link where the wireless link may be an infrared channel or satellite band.” Mazzaferri ¶ 52; see also Mazzaferri ¶ 36.
and an identifier associated with the first computer
Each device on the network, including the remote computer 401, is associated with address information. See Mazzaferri ¶¶ 49 and 51.
wherein the first mobile device has a video signal displayed on its screen, the sharing application on the first mobile device converts this video signal to a first digital data stream and sends the first digital data stream to the first computer, the first computer receives the first digital data stream and outputs the first digital data stream to a first mobile device window in the canvas on the first display region in a first display mode,
“In some embodiments, the virtual channel may be a seamless virtual channel” that is “used to remote application windows, a taskbar, a systray, etc.” Mazzaferri ¶ 92. In other words, remote computer 401’s remote client 410 collaborates with computing device 102’s window management service 206 to display the video of remote applications 405A–405N on the computing device 102. See Mazzaferri ¶ 93.
“For example, Application A executing on the remote computer 401 may generate application output which may be displayed in an application output window on the remote computer 401. The application output generated by Application A may be transmitted to the mobile device 102 where it may be displayed within an application output window on the mobile device 102.” Mazzaferri ¶ 102.
when the collaboration software on the first computer detects a window gesture within the first mobile device window on the first display associated with the first digital data stream, the first computer alters the first mobile device window on the first display region to be in a second display mode that includes first [sic] icon tray adjacent thereto in the first display region, the first icon tray including
“[T]he window management service 206[] may cause the virtual keyboard or virtual picker to be displayed in response to input from a user. For example, a user may select or actuate a control displayed on the mobile device 102. This control, upon actuation, may cause a client on the mobile device 102 to display the virtual keyboard or virtual picker.” Mazzaferri ¶ 100. Additionally, “the window management service 206 may pan or zoom the display of the application to permit the control to become visible.” Mazzaferri ¶ 100. The control is thus displayed in the adjacent space produced by the pan or zoom operation. See Mazzaferri ¶ 105 and FIG. 7.
wherein actions performed in the first icon tray are only performed for the first mobile device window,
“A user may interact with the native control to generate input. Once the control is used to generate input, the client or window management service 206 may transmit the input to the remote computer 401. Upon receiving the input, the remote computer 401 may inject the control input into an actual control displayed within the actual application output generated by Application A. Injection of the received control input may be accomplished using a Windows UI Automation API.” Mazzaferri ¶ 102.
Mazzaferri does not appear to explicitly disclose an embodiment in which the identifier associated with the first computer is “entered on the first mobile device,” and Mazzaferri’s analogous icon tray also lacks the claimed “snapshot icon.”
Thiyagarajan, however, teaches:
A system, comprising: a first display having a first display region;
As shown in FIG. 1A, a display 152 is provided as part of the system. Thiyagarajan ¶ 17.
a first computer that drives the first display, the first computer to run collaboration software;
The display 152 is driven by a “support agent computing device 150 run[ning] a customer support application,” Thiyagarajan ¶ 17, e.g., customer support application 202 of FIG. 2. Thiyagarajan ¶¶ 26 and 27.
and a first mobile device to run a sharing application,
Meanwhile, the system further includes a tablet computing device 100 that also runs a customer support application, Thiyagarajan ¶ 16, e.g., the browser application 222 shown in FIG. 2. Thiyagarajan ¶ 27.
wherein a wireless connection is established between the first mobile device and the first computer through the sharing application on the first mobile device and collaboration software on the first computer,
“A user utilizing a first computing device, such as a tablet computing device 100, connects to a second computing device, such as the customer support agent computing device 150, via a network 140. The network 140 includes, for example . . . wireless networks.” Thiyagarajan ¶ 14. More specifically, this connection is established “[w]hen the user launches a customer support application on the tablet computing device 100 and initiates a screen sharing function,” Thiyagarajan ¶ 16, much like the claimed invention establishes its wireless connection through the sharing application.
and an identifier associated with the first computer is entered on the first mobile device,
During a telephone call to a customer support agent, “the support agent may verbally convey telephone session identifying information to the user. The user may then manually enter this telephone session identifying information (such as, e.g., a session identification number) into the support application 202 when initiating the support session. The central control module 210 can use this telephone session identifying information to route the support session to the customer support agent already on the phone with the user.” Thiyagarajan ¶ 47.
wherein the first mobile device has a video signal displayed on its screen,
“The tablet computing device 100 includes a touch-sensitive display component 102, which produces user interface (‘UI’) content 110, such as an operating system user interface or the interface of one or more software applications that may run on the tablet computing device 100.” Thiyagarajan ¶ 15.
the sharing application on the first mobile device converts this video signal to a first digital data stream and sends the first digital data stream to the first computer,
“When the user launches a customer support application on the tablet computing device 100 and initiates a screen sharing function, the user interface content 110 currently being displayed on the tablet computing device 100 is transmitted to the support agent computing device 150. Additionally or alternatively, data representing the user interface content 110 can be transmitted to the support agent computing device 150. Data representing the user interface content 110 may include a copy of the user interface content 110, data representing pixel changes relative to a previous frame rendered as part of the user interface content 110, and/or any other type of data the support agent computing device 150 can process to render displays that show at least a portion of the user interface content 110 in near real-time.” Thiyagarajan ¶ 16.
the first computer receives the first digital data stream and outputs the first digital data stream to a first mobile device window on the first display in a first display mode,
“The support agent computing device 150 runs a customer support application, which then displays the screen sharing image 160 of the content 110 displayed on the user’s computing device 100 on the display 152 of the support agent computing device 150.” Thiyagarajan ¶ 17.
the first computer alters the first mobile device window in on the first display region to be in a second display mode that includes first icon tray adjacent thereto in the first display region, the first icon tray including
“The customer support application may also provide the agent with one or more support tools 162a–162c,” which FIGS. 1A–1D illustrate as a column of icons adjacent to the screen sharing image 160. Thiyagarajan ¶ 18.
Mazzaferri and Thiyagarajan are analogous art in the same field of endeavor because both references concern graphical user interfaces for streaming the contents of one display device to another over a network. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mazzaferri’s analogous first computer and first mobile device such that the first mobile device could initiate video streaming by entering a remote address, as taught by Thiyagarajan. One would have been motivated to combine Thiyagarajan with Mazzaferri because allowing additional entry points into the streaming functionality makes the streaming functionality more accessible to users.
As mentioned above, neither Mazzaferri nor Thiyagarajan explicitly disclose an icon tray with the claimed “snapshot icon,” let alone a snapshot icon that “open[s] a new window that displays a snapshot of the first mobile device window in addition to the first mobile device window.” To be clear, the Examiner reads “in addition to” as a reference back to the first mobile device window itself, not its snapshot. In other words, when the snapshot icon is selected, there will be two windows: the “new window that displays a snapshot” and the old “first mobile device window.”
TechSmith, however, teaches a system that executes software called “SnagIt,” see TechSmith 1, and the SnagIt software displays:
an icon tray
The SnagIt main screen comprises a “Profiles” section with at least five icons. TechSmith 5.
the icon tray including a snapshot icon
One of the icons in the Profiles section is the “Window” profile configured to “capture a window on the desktop.” TechSmith 38.
and at least one of a keyboard icon, an annotation icon, and a pan icon,
Another one of the icons in the Profiles section is the “Scrolling window” profile, which falls within the scope of a “pan icon” because it auto-scrolls a window in order to capture all of its contents. TechSmith 38; see also TechSmith 125.
and wherein, in response to selection of the snapshot icon in the first icon tray for the first mobile device window, open a new window in the first display region that displays a snapshot of the first mobile device window.
After selecting the “Window” profile, the contents of the window captured by the screenshot will be displayed in a new and separate “Capture Preview” window. TechSmith 38; see also TechSmith 4 (step 5 describing the capture preview window opening after taking the screenshot), 131, and 134 (steps 3 and 4).
Notably, this new window is not displayed full screen (and therefore merely in a “first display region” as claimed), because the SnagIt application is merely a window that is displayed within the wider canvas of the version of Windows on which it is installed. (See TechSmith 3 (illustrating the SnagIt window in step 2). Moreover, TechSmith is to be read in light of the combination as a whole, and as explained above, both Mazzaferri and Thiyagarajan already provided overlapping teachings for having a canvas that is bigger than the remote window displayed therein.
A claim is obvious when it consists of known prior art elements that one skilled in the art could have combined as claimed using known methods with no change in their respective functions, if the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2143 (subsection (II.)(A.)) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 318, 416 (2007)). Pursuant to MPEP § 2143 (subsection (II.)(A.)), the following findings of fact that are relevant to this rationale of obviousness are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. The evidence for this finding is provided above, amongst the rejection’s mappings of each claim element to each respective portion of the prior art references and acknowledges where each reference lacks what the other contains.
(2) One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The “known methods” are the same methods that the prior art discloses for adding each of the other icons to their known icon trays. For example, in Mazzaferri, to display the selectable control that causes a client on mobile device 102 to display the virtual keyboard or virtual picker, the skilled practitioner is told to write and store executable instructions on a system’s memory that instruct the computer system to do the same. Mazzaferri ¶ 56; see also Thiyagarajan ¶¶ 85, 89, and 91.
Furthermore, we know that each element performs the same function in combination as it does separately because each “element” in this case is a separate icon tied to its specific corresponding function. As such, there is no reason for the presence of any one icon to interfere with another icon’s ability to trigger its corresponding function.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable for similar reasons as given above. That is, since the references each teach icon trays with various icons for performing various tasks, the only thing for a person to “predict” is self-evident consequence of combining all of those icons in a single icon tray: a resultant icon tray that has all of the known icons.
Therefore, in view of the above findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the window profile icon from SnagIt’s icon tray to either of Mazzaferri or Thiyagarajan’s respective icon trays, thereby providing a mechanism to open a new window displaying a snapshot of the captured window.
Conclusion
This is a Continuation of applicant’s earlier Application No. 17/706,606. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights