DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 51-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the newly cited Cowburn reference (US 20210241529 A1), located in an updated search necessitated by the amendment, for the limitations incorporated from cancelled claims 2 and 12. Nevertheless, Applicant’s argument that independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to incorporate the allowable subject matter of now-cancelled claims 2 and 12 is addressed for completeness: the argument is not persuasive as to allowability because amended claims 1 and 11 are broader than claim 2 and 12 rewritten in independent form, since the amendment deleted the alternative generating clause reciting limitations (a) and (b). The indication of allowability of the subject matter of claims 2 and 12 is accordingly withdrawn as to claims 1 and 11 in view of Cowburn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 51-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Anderson; Glen J. et al., US 20130290876 A1] in view of [Cowburn; Piers et al., US 20210241529 A1].
Regarding claim 1:
Anderson discloses:
1. A method of displaying content on multiple devices [Anderson: Abstract: “Methods and apparatus to produce augmented reality representations across multiple devices are described”; ¶ 0014: “an AR character may emerge from a screen that shows the same character in a non-AR view. In other words, on an AR screen, the character is shown emerging from the second screen. At the same time the second screen also shows the character emerging from that screen for as long as any part of the character remains on that screen”], the method comprising:
selecting multi-display media content [Anderson: ¶ 0015: “salamander can be generated as a virtual object in a virtual environment using conventional graphics rendering techniques”; ¶ 0033: “a user triggers the launch of an AR object from a display in a system that has multiple displays”; Examiner: Triggering launch of the AR object that will be presented across multiple displays is selecting multi-display content.] for display at a first device [Anderson: Fig.1: first screen 14; ¶ 0015: “The first screen is the display of a tablet computer that is resting on a desk 16”] and a second device [Anderson: Fig.2: third screen 24; ¶ 0017: “The third screen is part of a third device, such as another tablet computer, a cellular telephone or a portable media or gaming player.”; Examiner: The phone bearing third screen 24 is mapped to the claimed second device, as the claim require only two distinct devices.],
wherein the multi-display media content comprises a first content for display at the first device [Anderson: Fig.1; ¶ 0015: “A salamander 10 is presented standing on a mossy rock 12 on a first screen 14”] and a second content for display at the second device [Anderson: Fig.2: ¶ 0019: “the salamander 10 is emerging from the tablet screen 14 onto the desk 16, as viewed with AR through the phone 24. The salamander is rendered as an AR character in the third screen”];
accessing a spatial map [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “ The Adjacent Screen Perspective Module may further allow the position of the screens to be correlated to a model of three-dimensional space representing all of the existing objects and virtual objects”] comprising positions [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “determine an angle and position of one display relative to another display … determine coordinates of an adjacent screen relative to its own screen coordinates”] and orientations [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “An accelerometer, magnetometer, compass, or camera can be used to determine the angle at which a device is being held while infrared emitters and cameras could allow the orientation of the screen device to be determined in relation to the sensors on an adjacent device”] of the first and second devices [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “determine an angle and position of one display relative to another display.”];
tracking the positions and orientations [Anderson: ¶ 0023: “4, the particular items presented on the third display differ depending upon the position of the third display”; ¶ 0058: “This may be used to determine the location and movements of the AR display using its camera or other sensors as well as to observe the positions of the other displays relative to each other”; Examiner: Ongoing sensor-driven determination of each device’s location, movements, and orientation constitutes tracking.] of the first and second devices [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “to observe the positions of the other displays relative to each other”] in the spatial map [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “The Adjacent Screen Perspective Module may further allow the position of the screens to be correlated to a model of three-dimensional space representing all of the existing objects and virtual objects”];
determining a dynamic synchronization parameter [Anderson: Claim 17: “an adjacent screen perspective module coupled to the screen rendering module to determine an angle and position of the first display relative to the second display and provide the determined angle and position to the screen rendering module to correct the presentations on the first and second displays”; ¶ 0050: “if the virtual object is being moved from a first screen to a second screen, the Adjacent Screen Perspective Module 807 could send data to the Screen Rendering Module to suggest, for example how to render the virtual object on the second scree”; Examiner: The angle-and-position data provided to the screen rendering module to correct cross-device presentation is a synchronization parameter, and is dynamic in that it updates as device poses change.] based on the tracked positions and orientations of the first and second devices [Anderson: Claim 17: “determine an angle and position of the first display relative to the second display and provide the determined angle and position to the screen rendering module to correct the presentations on the first and second displays”; ¶ 0058: “An accelerometer, magnetometer, compass, or camera can be used to determine the angle at which a device is being held while infrared emitters and cameras could allow the orientation of the screen device to be determined in relation to the sensors on an adjacent device”],
generating, for display at the first and second devices, the multi-display media content [Anderson: ¶ 0049: “ The Screen Rendering Module 821 draws objects on the one or more multiple screens including the AR display for the user to see”; ¶ 0019: “the salamander 10 is emerging from the tablet screen 14 onto the desk 16, as viewed with AR through the phone 24”] based on the dynamic synchronization parameter [Anderson: Claim 17: “provide the determined angle and position to the screen rendering module to correct the presentations on the first and second displays”; ¶ 0050: “if the virtual object is being moved from a first screen to a second screen, the Adjacent Screen Perspective Module 807 could send data to the Screen Rendering Module to suggest, for example how to render the virtual object on the second screen”];
However, Anderson does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first content and the second content are selected for display based on the dynamic synchronization parameter;
determining that a change in the dynamic synchronization parameter is greater than a threshold value; and
updating at least one of the first content or the second content when the change in the dynamic synchronization parameter is greater than the threshold value.
Cowburn discloses:
wherein the first content and the second content are selected for display based on the dynamic synchronization parameter [Cowburn: ¶ 0063: “a common transformation is computed to synch up the coordinate frames of the first and second devices so that AR content is consistently presented on the first and second devices”; ¶ 0021: “the second device can determine the offset by which to shift AR content the second device presents”; Examiner: The transformation between the first and second devices, computed from each device’s tracked position and orientation (¶ 0063), is a dynamic synchronization parameter, and the content each device presents is selected for display in accordance with it.];
determining that a change in the dynamic synchronization parameter is greater than a threshold value [Cowburn: ¶ 0076: “The second device computes an error based on comparing the second transformation with the previously computed and determined transformation. The second device determines whether or not to update the transformation used by the first device with the second transformation based on the value of the error with respect to a threshold”; ¶ 0077: “ if the second device determines that the error is equal to or greater than the threshold, the second device causes the AR session to be displayed based on the second transformation”; Examiner: The error between the most recently computed and the prior inter-device transformations is the change in the synchronization parameter, and Cowburn expressly determines whether that change is at or above the threshold, which encompasses greater than the threshold.]; and
updating at least one of the first content or the second content when the change in the dynamic synchronization parameter is greater than the threshold value [Cowburn: ¶ 0077: “ the second device causes the AR session to be displayed based on the second transformation. Specifically, the second device sends the second transformation to the first device with an instruction to replace the currently used transformation with the second transformation”; ¶ 0076: “the first device maintains presenting the shared AR session content based on the previously determined transformation”; Examiner: The updating is threshold-conditioned, since below the threshold the presented content is maintained unchanged (¶ 0076), and at or above it the content displayed on the first and second device is updated per the replacement transformation (¶ 0077).].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson’s multi-device method to compare a change in its determined angle-and-position synchronization parameter against a threshold value and to update the presented content when the change is greater than that threshold, as taught by Cowburn, in order to correct [Cowburn: ¶ 0015: “errors in the AR session caused by drift of the common coordinate system”] during the session while preventing disruptive re-registration for insignificant changes, applying Cowburn’s known threshold-gated update technique to Anderson’s angle-and-position parameter with the predictable result that Anderon’s cross-device presentations are corrected only when the devices’ relative pose has changed meaningfully.
Regarding claim 11:
Anderson discloses:
11. A system of displaying content on multiple devices [Anderson: Abstract: “Methods and apparatus to produce augmented reality representations across multiple devices are described”], the system comprising:
input/output circuitry [Anderson: ¶ 0015: “The first screen is the display of a tablet computer that is resting on a desk 16”; ¶ 0058: “An accelerometer, magnetometer, compass, or camera can be used to determine the angle at which a device is being held while infrared emitters and cameras could allow the orientation of the screen device to be determined in relation to the sensors on an adjacent device”; Examiner: Anderson’s sensors (accelerometer, magnetometer, compass, camera, IR emitters/cameras) are input circuitry and the display screens (first screen 14, second screen 18, and third screen 24) are output circuitry.];
control circuitry configured [Anderson: ¶ 0049: “The Screen Rendering Module 821 draws objects on the one or more multiple screens including the AR display for the user to see”; ¶ 0053: “The Data Transfer and Coordination Module 823 works with the various computing and display resources in the system to send information regarding virtual objects and effects to other devices so that these can be presented on the other displays”; ¶ 0058: “The Adjacent Screen Perspective Module 807, which may include or be coupled to the Device Proximity Detection Module 825, may be adapted to determine an angle and position of one display relative to another display”; Examiner: Anderson’s screen rendering module 821, adjacent screen perspective module 807, and data transfer module 823 collectively constitute control circuitry configured to perform the functions recited below.] to:
select multi-display media content [Anderson: ¶ 0015: “salamander can be generated as a virtual object in a virtual environment using conventional graphics rendering techniques”; ¶ 0033: “a user triggers the launch of an AR object from a display in a system that has multiple displays”; Examiner: Triggering launch of the AR object that will be presented across multiple displays is selecting multi-display content.] for display at a first device [Anderson: Fig.1: first screen 14; ¶ 0015: “The first screen is the display of a tablet computer that is resting on a desk 16”] and a second device [Anderson: Fig.2: third screen 24; ¶ 0017: “The third screen is part of a third device, such as another tablet computer, a cellular telephone or a portable media or gaming player.”; Examiner: The phone bearing third screen 24 is mapped to the claimed second device, as the claim require only two distinct devices.],
wherein the multi-display media content comprises a first content for display at the first device [Anderson: Fig.1; ¶ 0015: “A salamander 10 is presented standing on a mossy rock 12 on a first screen 14”] and a second content for display at the second device [Anderson: Fig.2: ¶ 0019: “the salamander 10 is emerging from the tablet screen 14 onto the desk 16, as viewed with AR through the phone 24. The salamander is rendered as an AR character in the third screen”];
access, via the input/output circuitry, a spatial map [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “ The Adjacent Screen Perspective Module may further allow the position of the screens to be correlated to a model of three-dimensional space representing all of the existing objects and virtual objects”] comprising positions [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “determine an angle and position of one display relative to another display … determine coordinates of an adjacent screen relative to its own screen coordinates”] and orientations [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “An accelerometer, magnetometer, compass, or camera can be used to determine the angle at which a device is being held while infrared emitters and cameras could allow the orientation of the screen device to be determined in relation to the sensors on an adjacent device”] of the first and second devices [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “determine an angle and position of one display relative to another display.”];
track the positions and orientations [Anderson: ¶ 0023: “4, the particular items presented on the third display differ depending upon the position of the third display”; ¶ 0058: “This may be used to determine the location and movements of the AR display using its camera or other sensors as well as to observe the positions of the other displays relative to each other”; Examiner: Ongoing sensor-driven determination of each device’s location, movements, and orientation constitutes tracking.] of the first and second devices [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “to observe the positions of the other displays relative to each other”] in the spatial map [Anderson: ¶ 0058: “The Adjacent Screen Perspective Module may further allow the position of the screens to be correlated to a model of three-dimensional space representing all of the existing objects and virtual objects”];
determine a dynamic synchronization parameter [Anderson: Claim 17: “an adjacent screen perspective module coupled to the screen rendering module to determine an angle and position of the first display relative to the second display and provide the determined angle and position to the screen rendering module to correct the presentations on the first and second displays”; ¶ 0050: “if the virtual object is being moved from a first screen to a second screen, the Adjacent Screen Perspective Module 807 could send data to the Screen Rendering Module to suggest, for example how to render the virtual object on the second scree”; Examiner: The angle-and-position data provided to the screen rendering module to correct cross-device presentation is a synchronization parameter, and is dynamic in that it updates as device poses change.] based on the tracked positions and orientations of the first and second devices [Anderson: Claim 17: “determine an angle and position of the first display relative to the second display and provide the determined angle and position to the screen rendering module to correct the presentations on the first and second displays”; ¶ 0058: “An accelerometer, magnetometer, compass, or camera can be used to determine the angle at which a device is being held while infrared emitters and cameras could allow the orientation of the screen device to be determined in relation to the sensors on an adjacent device”]
and generate, for display at the first and second devices, the multi-display media content [Anderson: ¶ 0049: “ The Screen Rendering Module 821 draws objects on the one or more multiple screens including the AR display for the user to see”; ¶ 0019: “the salamander 10 is emerging from the tablet screen 14 onto the desk 16, as viewed with AR through the phone 24”] based on the dynamic synchronization parameter [Anderson: Claim 17: “provide the determined angle and position to the screen rendering module to correct the presentations on the first and second displays”; ¶ 0050: “if the virtual object is being moved from a first screen to a second screen, the Adjacent Screen Perspective Module 807 could send data to the Screen Rendering Module to suggest, for example how to render the virtual object on the second screen”];
However, Anderson does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first content and the second content are selected for display based on the dynamic synchronization parameter;
determine that a change in the dynamic synchronization parameter is greater than a threshold value; and
update at least one of the first content or the second content when the change in the dynamic synchronization parameter is greater than the threshold value.
Cowburn discloses:
wherein the first content and the second content are selected for display based on the dynamic synchronization parameter [Cowburn: ¶ 0063: “a common transformation is computed to synch up the coordinate frames of the first and second devices so that AR content is consistently presented on the first and second devices”; ¶ 0021: “the second device can determine the offset by which to shift AR content the second device presents”; Examiner: The transformation between the first and second devices, computed from each device’s tracked position and orientation (¶ 0063), is a dynamic synchronization parameter, and the content each device presents is selected for display in accordance with it.];
determine that a change in the dynamic synchronization parameter is greater than a threshold value [Cowburn: ¶ 0076: “The second device computes an error based on comparing the second transformation with the previously computed and determined transformation. The second device determines whether or not to update the transformation used by the first device with the second transformation based on the value of the error with respect to a threshold”; ¶ 0077: “ if the second device determines that the error is equal to or greater than the threshold, the second device causes the AR session to be displayed based on the second transformation”; Examiner: The error between the most recently computed and the prior inter-device transformations is the change in the synchronization parameter, and Cowburn expressly determines whether that change is at or above the threshold, which encompasses greater than the threshold.]; and
update at least one of the first content or the second content when the change in the dynamic synchronization parameter is greater than the threshold value [Cowburn: ¶ 0077: “ the second device causes the AR session to be displayed based on the second transformation. Specifically, the second device sends the second transformation to the first device with an instruction to replace the currently used transformation with the second transformation”; ¶ 0076: “the first device maintains presenting the shared AR session content based on the previously determined transformation”; Examiner: The updating is threshold-conditioned, since below the threshold the presented content is maintained unchanged (¶ 0076), and at or above it the content displayed on the first and second device is updated per the replacement transformation (¶ 0077).].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson’s multi-device method to compare a change in its determined angle-and-position synchronization parameter against a threshold value and to update the presented content when the change is greater than that threshold, as taught by Cowburn, in order to correct [Cowburn: ¶ 0015: “errors in the AR session caused by drift of the common coordinate system”] during the session while preventing disruptive re-registration for insignificant changes, applying Cowburn’s known threshold-gated update technique to Anderson’s angle-and-position parameter with the predictable result that Anderon’s cross-device presentations are corrected only when the devices’ relative pose has changed meaningfully.
Regarding claim 51:
Anderson in view of Cowburn discloses:
51. The method of claim 1,
wherein the generating for display, at the first and second devices, of the multi-display media content based on the dynamic synchronization parameter comprises causing the first device to display the first content depicting an object or a character from a first perspective corresponding to a viewpoint of the object or the character from a first angle [Anderson: Fig.1: salamander 10 on mossy rock 12 on a first screen 14 (tablet); ¶ 0015: “ A salamander 10 is presented standing on a mossy rock 12 on a first screen 14”; ¶ 0015: “The salamander can be generated as a virtual object in a virtual environment using conventional graphics rendering techniques”; Examiner: The tablet renders the salamander at an angle chosen by the rendering technique, the first angle], and causing the second device to display the second content depicting an object or the character from a second perspective that is distinct from the first perspective and that corresponds to a viewpoint of the object or the character from a second angle distinct from the first angle [Anderson: Fig.2: salamander 10 on third screen 24 (phone); ¶ 0019: “the salamander 10 is emerging from the tablet screen 14 onto the desk 16, as viewed with AR through the phone 24. The salamander is rendered as an AR character in the third screen”; ¶ 0014: “n AR character may emerge from a screen that shows the same character in a non-AR view … At the same time the second screen also shows the character emerging from that screen for as long as any part of the character remains on that screen”; ¶ 0018: “ the second device can show exactly what a person in the position of the third screen 24 would see”; ¶ 0023: “the particular items presented on the third display differ depending upon the position of the third display”; ¶ 0058: “An accelerometer, magnetometer, compass, or camera can be used to determine the angle at which a device is being held”; Examiner: The phone displays the same salamander from the phone’s own independently-determined camera angle (¶ 0058), which is necessarily distinct from the tablet’s rendered angle, providing the second viewpoint at the second angle distinct from the first angle.], and
wherein the first device is distinct from the second device [Anderson: ¶ 0016: “The real scene of FIG. 1 also includes a second screen 18 of a second device, in this case a portable notebook computer”; ¶ 0017: “. The third screen is part of a third device, such as another tablet computer, a cellular telephone or a portable media or gaming player”; Examiner: The third device (phone) mapped as the first device and second device (notebook) mapped as the second device as distinct devices of Anderson.].
Regarding claim 52:
Anderson in view of Cowburn discloses:
52. The method of claim 51,
wherein the first device is a television [Anderson: Fig.5: three-dimensional display 28; ¶ 0025: “a three-dimensional display 28 in the form of a larger computer desktop display or a television, presents a scene that includes multiple space ships flying about the room. Some of the ships for example a first ship 30 that is within the frame of the television screen 28 can be presented on the display of the television”], and the second device is a mobile device [Anderson: Fig.5: second display 34; ¶ 0026: “ the user has a second display 34 such as a table or slate computer with which the user can view additional space ships 36, 38, 40 that appear to be flying around the room. As the user moves the second AR display, different space ships come into view”].
Regarding claim 53:
Anderson in view of Cowburn discloses:
53. The method of claim 1,
wherein the generating display, at the first and second devices, of the multi-display media content based on the dynamic synchronization parameter comprises causing the first device to display the first content depicting a first object or character [Anderson: Fig.4: salamander 10 on third screen 24; ¶ 0019: “the salamander 10 is emerging from the tablet screen 14 onto the desk 16, as viewed with AR through the phone 24. The salamander is rendered as an AR character in the third screen”; ¶ 0021: “ the salamander 10 is now nibbling the edge of the notebook computer display 18”; Examiner: The phone bearing third screen 24 is mapped as the claimed first device and the salamander as the first character.], and causing the second device to display the second content depicting a second object or character [Anderson: Fig.4: water simulation with ripples on second screen 18 (notebook); ¶ 0021: “The water simulation on the screen surface shows ripples with or without viewing through AR”; ¶ 0021: “The second display can then be caused to produce the water ripples as shown in FIG. 4.”; Examiner: The notebook bearing second screen 18 is mapped as the claimed second device and water simulation as the second object.],
wherein an event occurs in the multi-display media content which impacts each of a depiction of the first object or character and a depiction of the second object or character [Anderson: ¶ 0021: “he salamander 10 is now nibbling the edge of the notebook computer display 18. The water simulation on the screen surface shows ripples with or without viewing through AR. In other words, the salamander is interacting the second screen and the effects of this interaction on the second are seen on the third AR screen”; ¶ 0024: “The AR character may also change with interactions with real or other virtual objects. For example, each time the creature meets a candy or eats a candy, it could evolve into a higher life form. In a gaming context, each time a game character absorbs a candy, it could gain more lives, weapons, or keys”; ¶ 0045: “if the salamander were to throw or kick something that virtual object might travel a long distance. Similarly, an exploding space ship might scatter flames or debris over a large area”; Examiner: The nibbling event impacts both the salamander’s depiction (shown nibbling one the phone) and the water’s depiction (shown rippling on the notebook).], and
wherein the event comprises an action performed by the first object or character in relation to the second object or character [Anderson: ¶ 0021: “the salamander 10 is now nibbling the edge of the notebook computer display 18”; ¶ 0021: “ the salamander is interacting the second screen”; Examiner: The salamander’s nibbling is an action by the first character in relation to the water/notebook display content.], and
wherein the first device is distinct from the second device [Anderson: ¶ 0016: “The real scene of FIG. 1 also includes a second screen 18 of a second device, in this case a portable notebook computer”; ¶ 0017: “. The third screen is part of a third device, such as another tablet computer, a cellular telephone or a portable media or gaming player”; Examiner: The third device (phone) mapped as the first device and second device (notebook) mapped as the second device as distinct devices of Anderson.].
Regarding claim 54:
Anderson in view of Cowburn discloses:
54. The method of claim 53, wherein the first device is a television [Anderson: Fig.5: three-dimensional display 28; ¶ 0025: “a three-dimensional display 28 in the form of a larger computer desktop display or a television”], and the second device is a mobile device [Anderson: Fig.5: second display 34; ¶ 0026: “the user has a second display 34 such as a table or slate computer”].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Anderson; Glen J. et al., US 20130290876 A1] in view of [Cowburn; Piers et al., US 20210241529 A1] and further in view of [Drake; Edward et al., US 20150254045 A1].
Regarding claim 8:
Anderson in view of Cowburn discloses:
8. The method of claim 1.
However, Anderson in view of Cowburn does not expressly disclose:
the method further comprising:
determining one or more capabilities the first device determining one or more capabilities of the second device;
selecting the first content for the first device based on the determined one or more capabilities of the first device;
and selecting the second content for the second device based on the determined one or more capabilities of the second device.
Drake discloses:
the method further comprising:
determining one or more capabilities the first device [Drake: Abstract: “The process receives, at a master device, one or more device parameters from a plurality of display devices. The process also determines, at the master device, an arrangement of the plurality of display devices that provides a multi-device display”; Examiner: Receiving device parameters from the a first display device of the plurality of display devices and using those parameters to determine an arrangement is determining one or more capabilities of the first device, since under broadest reasonable interpretation a display device’s “parameters” (e.g., display size, resolution, orientation, form factor) include its capabilities]; determining one or more capabilities of the second device [Drake: Abstract: “The process receives, at a master device, one or more device parameters from a plurality of display devices. The process also determines, at the master device, an arrangement of the plurality of display devices that provides a multi-device display”; Examiner: Drake’s master device receives device parameters from each of the plurality of display devices, and accordingly determines one or more capabilities of the second device.];
selecting the first content for the first device based on the determined one or more capabilities of the first device [Drake: Abstract: “ Further, the process sends, from the master device, one or more display indicia to the plurality of display devices that each of the plurality of display devices displays to allow one or more users to position the plurality of display devices in the arrangement. The process sends, from the master device, a first portion of the content to a first display device, and a second portion of the content to a second display device for the first and second display devices to simultaneously display the first and second portions of the content”; Examiner: The master device’s selection of the first portion of content for the first display device is based upon the arrangement, which is in turn determined from the device parameters/capabilities of the first display device – i.e., the first content is selected for the first device based on the determined capabilities of the first device.];
and selecting the second content for the second device based on the determined one or more capabilities of the second device [Drake: Abstract: “ Further, the process sends, from the master device, one or more display indicia to the plurality of display devices that each of the plurality of display devices displays to allow one or more users to position the plurality of display devices in the arrangement. The process sends, from the master device, a first portion of the content to a first display device, and a second portion of the content to a second display device for the first and second display devices to simultaneously display the first and second portions of the content”; Examiner: The master device’s selection of the second portion of content for the second display device is likewise based upon the arrangement determined from the second device’s parameters/capabilities – i.e., the second content is selected for the second device based on the determined capabilities of the second device.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Drake’s per-device-parameter-based content distribution into Anderson’s multi-device method, so that the first and second devices are each selected based on the determined capabilities of the respective device. Anderson’s devices are heterogeneous (e.g., tablet, notebook, phone – see ¶¶ 0015-0017), and applying Drake’s known capability-based per-device content selection technique to Anderson’s heterogeneous multi-device system yields the predictable result of each device receiving content suited to its own capabilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 55 are allowed.
Claims 5-7, 10, 13-17, and 20 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Koosha Sharifi-Tafreshi whose telephone number is (571)270-5897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM to 5PM 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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/KOOSHA SHARIFI-TAFRESHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
