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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6, 8-9, 13, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (US 2016/0360339 A1), hereinafter “Yuan”.
As per claim 1, Yuan teaches a method comprising:
“obtaining, by a first device, application information of at least one first application of a second device from a first distributed database, wherein the first distributed database is in the first device, the first distributed database is capable of data synchronization with a second distributed database, the second distributed database is in the second device, and the application information includes at least one of an application name, an application icon, or an application type” at [0009];
(Yuan teaches transmitting, to the target device (i.e., “first device”,) a list (i.e., “distributed database”) of shareable applications providable by the source device (i.e., “second device”))
“displaying, by the first device, a first interface, wherein the first interface includes a second application of the second device, and the second application belongs to a subset of the first application” at [0009];
(Yuan teaches receiving, from the target device, a request to access an application (i.e., “second application”) among the shareable applications, executing the application, generating a window instance of the executed application for the target device, and transmitting the window instance (i.e., “first interface”) to the target device)
“receiving, by the first device, a first operation from a user, wherein the first operation indicates the first device to display the second application of the second device” at [0009]-[0011];
(Yuan teaches receiving, from the target device, a name of the application (i.e., “second application”) that is selected by a user from the list of sharable applications, in response to receiving a request to access the application, generating a window instances of the executed application for the target device, and transmitting the window instance to the target device)
As per claim 6, Yuan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising “receiving, by the first device, a first control instruction from a third device, wherein the third device is a control device; and controlling, by the first device in response to the first control instruction, sliding of a display interface of the first device” at [0067],[0076]-[0080].
As per claim 8, Yuan teaches the method of claim 6, wherein “the first control instruction is generated based on a second control instruction, and the second control instruction is generated based on a fourth operation of the user” at [0067], [0076]-[0080].
Claims 9, 13, 18, 20 recite similar limitations as in claims 1, 6, 8 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 7, 10, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Dusad et al. (US 2022/0244902 A1), hereinafter “Dusad”.
As per claim 2, Yuan teaches the method of claim 1 discussed above. Yuan does not teach “obtaining, by the first device, a list of applications on the second device that are forbidden to be shared; and filtering, by the first device, the application information of the first application based on the list of applications on the second device that are forbidden to be shared, to obtain the second application, wherein the second application belong to a list of applications on the second device that are allowed to be shared” as claimed. However, Dusad teaches method for sharing applications between a local device and a remote device, including the steps of obtaining an application listing which includes a list of applications which are being shared, not being shared, and cannot be shared (i.e., “forbidden”) at [0049]-[0050]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dusad with Yuan’s teaching by providing a list of applications which cannot be shared so that a user can make an informed decision by selecting only shareable applications to share with another devices, and therefore maintain security and integrity for the protected/private applications which cannot be shared.
As per claim 7, Yuan and Dusad teaches the method according to claim 2 discussed above. Yuan also teaches: “receiving, by the first device, a first control instruction from a third device, wherein the third device is a control device; and controlling, by the first device in response to the first control instruction, movement of a cursor on a display interface of the first device, or controlling, by the first device in response to the first control instruction, sliding of a display interface of the first device” at [0067],[0076]-[0080].
Claims 10, 14 recite similar limitations as in claim 2 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
As per claim 19, Yuan and Dusad teaches the first electronic device according to claim 14 discussed above. Yuan also teaches “receive a first control instruction from a third device, wherein the third device is a control device; and control in response to the first control instruction, movement of a cursor on a display interface of the first device, or control in response to the first control instruction, sliding of a display interface of the first device” at [0067],[0076]-[0080].
Claims 3-5, 11, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan as applied to claims 1 above, and in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0127529 A1), hereinafter “Kim”.
As per claim 3, Yuan teaches the method of claim 1 discussed above. Yuan also teaches: “obtaining, by the first device, first information from the second device, wherein the first information comprises projection data of a third application, the third application belongs to the second application, and the projection data of the third application includes a display policy for the third application; and displaying, by the first device, a second interface based on the first information, wherein the second interface includes the third application” at [0047]-[0050], [0099]-[0118]. Yuan does not explicitly teach: “the third application is capable of invoking a hardware capability of the first device” as claimed. However, Kim teaches a similar method for sharing applications between the auxiliary device and a telematics terminal, including the steps of requesting attribute information relating to the telematics terminal, the attribute information includes hardware capability of the telematics terminal such as screen resolution, screen size, and an application program list. The auxiliary terminal then generates the application program list including the detected usable application programs, which matches the screen resolution and the screen size of the telematics terminal. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim with Yuan’s teaching in order to improve image quality generating the screen which matches the screen resolution and the screen size of the telematics terminal, as suggested by Kim at [0161]-[0162].
As per claim 4, Yuan and Kim teach the method of claim 3 discussed above. Kim also teaches: “receiving, by the first device, a third operation from the user, wherein the third operation indicates the first device to display the third application of the second device” at [0099]-[0118], [0161]-[0162].
As per claim 5, Yuan and Kim teach the method of claim 3 discussed above. Kim also teaches: “sending, by the first device, second information to the second device, wherein the second information comprises application information of the third application and the hardware capability of the first device, and the second information is used by the second device to generate the first information” [0047]-[0050], [0099]-[0118], [0161]-[0162].
Claims 15-17 recite similar limitations as in claims 3-5 and are therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan and Dusad, as applied to claims 2, 7, 10, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Kim.
As per claim 12, Yuan and Dusad teach the method of claim 10 discussed above. Yuan also teaches: “ receiving, by the second device, first information from the first device, wherein the first information comprises application information of a third application and a hardware capability of the first device, and the third application belongs to the second application of the second device; determining, by the second device, projection data of the third application, wherein the projection data of the third application comprises a display policy for the third application; and sending, by the second device, second information to the first device, wherein the second information includes the projection data of the third application” at [0047]-[0050], [0099]-[0118].
Yuan does not explicitly teach: “the third application is capable of invoking a hardware capability of the first device” as claimed. However, Kim teaches a similar method for sharing applications between the auxiliary device and a telematics terminal, including the steps of requesting attribute information relating to the telematics terminal, the attribute information includes hardware capability of the telematics terminal such as screen resolution, screen size, and an application program list. The auxiliary terminal then generates the application program list including the detected usable application programs, which matches the screen resolution and the screen size of the telematics terminal. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim with Yuan’s teaching in order to improve image quality generating the screen which matches the screen resolution and the screen size of the telematics terminal, as suggested by Kim at [0161]-[0162].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argued that “Yuan failed to disclose the feature of “obtaining, by a first device, application information of at least one first application of a second device from a first distributed database, wherein the first distributed database is in the first device”. On the contrary, Yuan at [0009] the steps of transmitting, to the target device (i.e., “first device”,) a list of shareable applications providable by the source device (i.e., “second device”). Note that the list of shareable applications provided by the source device is transmitted by the source device to the target device, therefore after transmitting, the list of shareable applications is in the target device. The list of shareable applications is mapped to the claimed “the first distributed database”, and the target device then obtains application information from the list, which is already stored in the target device.
In light of the foregoing arguments, the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection is hereby sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
December 18, 2025
Prosecution Insights