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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This action is in response to amendment filed on 8/21/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/25/2003, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In that remarks, applicant argues in substance:
That: applicant argues that Theurer's selective sharing is directed to determining a portion of screen view 450 to be shared (e.g., the portion of the screen displaying application 416), not a portion of application 416 itself to be shared. Accordingly, Theurer does not teach or suggest determining a primary portion of the application to share. Chittampally and Zhang fail to cure the deficiencies of Theurer. Chittampally teaches selecting applications, documents, or files to be hidden from a screen sharing session and moving the selected items to a second desktop environment. See, Chittampally at [0004]- [0006], [0033]-[0036]. Zhang teaches determining a focus area of a shared screen based on a user's interaction with the screen and transmitting that focus area. See, Zhang at [0008]- [0010], [0080]-[0085], [0093]-[0106], Figs. 7-10.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Theurer merely determines a portion of a screen to be shared, rather than a primary portion of application 416 itself. However, the rejection does not rely on Theurer alone for the entirety of the claimed “primary portion” limitation. Theurer teaches selecting an application 416 for sharing and identifying the portion of screen view 450 displaying that application. Zhang further teaches determining a focus area 710 within shared content and transmitting adjusted data corresponding to that focus area to a destination device. As shown in Zhang’s Figs. 7 and 10, the focus area represents less than the entirety of the shared content and is determined in response to the destination device having a smaller display size. Thus, when Zhang’s focus-area technique is applied to the portion of Theurer’s screen displaying application 416, the resulting focus area constitutes a portion of application 416 having a size smaller than the window displaying the application. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Theurer and Zhang teach or suggest determining a primary portion of the application to share, wherein the primary portion has a second window size smaller than the first window size. Therefore, Applicant’s distinction between a “portion of the screen” and a “portion of the application” does not overcome the rejection, because Zhang further limits the shared content to a smaller focus area within the portion of the screen corresponding to the selected application. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,613 (hereinafter Rensburg), in view of US Publication Number 2006/0031779 (hereinafter Theurer). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Rensburg in view of Theurer discloses obtaining, through a first device an application to share, wherein the application has a first window size; determining, using a machine learning model, a primary portion of the application to share, wherein the primary portion has a second window size that is smaller than the first window size; causing the primary portion of the application to be shared and displayed on a second device (Rensburg, claims 1 and 4); wherein the determining the primary portion comprises determining based on a type of the content to share (Rensburg, claim 2); wherein the determining the primary portion comprises determining based on a type of the application to share (Rensburg, claim 2 and Theurer [0083], a person with ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the concept of determining primary portion based on the shared application as suggested by Theurer because both Rensburg and Theurer disclose sharing screen data based on the type of shared data and Theurer suggests the sharing could be based on the type of shared application, and the motivation is to improve relevance of shared data and enhance privacy control with the particular application); wherein the determining the primary portion comprises determining based on an audio input (Rensburg, claim 5); wherein the determining the primary portion is recursive (Rensburg, claim 3); generating a notification to a participant based on the primary portion of the content (Rensburg, claim 7); providing a participant with the ability to adjust the primary portion (Theurer, figure 3, [0070], user configure to adjust share screen, a person with ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the concept to provide the participant with the ability to adjust the shared data as suggested by Theurer because both Rensburg and Theurer disclose sharing screen data and Theurer further suggests the sharing could be adjusted by the participant, and the motivation is to allow user control over the sharing).
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theurer et al. US Publication Number 2006/0031779, hereinafter Theurer, in view of Zhang et al., US Publication Number 2023/0214958, hereinafter Zhang, and Chittampally et al., US Publication Number 2022/0414241, hereinafter Chittampally.
Referring to claim 1, Theurer discloses a computer-implemented method ([0002]) for adjusting content shared during communication sessions (abstract, figures 3, 4A-C, 5E), comprising:
obtaining, through a first device (source node 100) an application (screen data 310; [0083], application 416) to share([0070], [0083], application 416 desired to be screen shared; [0088][0089], source node share screen data to consumer node 150; figure 4C, the shared screen data could be a displayed application from the source node; ), wherein the application has a first window size ([0089], screen view 450 is view as the first window size);
determining a primary portion of the application to share (page 7 [0070], page 10 [0088][0089], portion of screen is specified to be shared);
causing the primary portion of the application to be shared and displayed on a second device (consumer node 150)(page 8 [0074], page 11 [0096], figure 4B, step 478, shared screen displayed on the consumer node).
Theurer does not explicitly teach the use of machine learning model to determine the sharing portion.
Chittampally discloses the machine learning model is used to determine the sharing content ([0005][0033], the machine learning model is used to identifying sharing content).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the idea of determining the primary portion based on Machine Learning (ML) technique into Theurer as suggested by Chittampally, because both Theurer and Chittampally discloses screen sharing to hide certain item (Theurer, [0048], Chittampally, [0005][0033]), and Chittampally suggests an use of Machine Learning techniques to identify sharing portion (Chittampally, page 1 [0005][0033]).
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Theurer to enhance security by provide additional filtering using Machine Learning techniques as suggested by Chittampally.
Furthermore, Theurer does not explicitly teach wherein the primary portion has a second window size that is smaller than the first window size.
Zhang discloses the shared screen could be cropped such that only the focus area (smailler second window size) is sent (see title and [0140], figure 7 and 8B).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify/crop the window size of the original screen (first window size) to only focus area (figures 7, 8B, cropped area is smaller than the original screen) as suggested by Zhang because both Chittampally and Zhang discloses sharing only portion of the data and Zhang further suggests to send only the focus area to the second device ([0140], figures 7 and 8B).
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Theurer to improve sharing quality and facilitate data transmission by sending only the focus information.
Referring to claim 2, Theurer in view of Chittampally and Zhang, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the primary portion comprises determining based on a type of the content to share (Theurer, [0006][0048], non-private and non-confidential information are determined types of content to be shared).
Referring to claim 3, Theurer in view of Chittampally and Zhang, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the primary portion comprises determining based on a type of the application to share (Theurer, [0083], application 416 may comprise any type and/or form of software capable of running or being displayed in the display 230a of the source node 100; each application has its own type for its primary portion to be determined).
Referring to claim 4, Theurer in view of Chittampally and Zhang, discloses the method of claim 1, Chittampally further discloses device inputs including voice input (page 2 [0017], page 4 [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the voice input of Chittampally in Theurer, because both Theurer and Chittampally discloses screen sharing based on user initiation/input (Theurer, abstract, Chittampally, abstract) and Chittampally suggests the input could be a voice input (Chittampally, page 1 [0005]).
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Theurer to allow hands-free vocal control as suggested by Chittampally.
Referring to claim 5, Theurer in view of Chittampally and Zhang, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the primary portion is recursive (Theurer, [0099], [0101][0102], updating screen with determined changes is viewed as the recursive primary portion determination).
Referring to claim 6, Theurer in view of Chittampally and Zhang, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a participant (user) with the ability to adjust the primary portion (Theurer, figure 3, [0070], the screen sharing presenter 325 allows a user to configure or specify the portion of the visible screen area of the display 230 of the computing device 200a for which to share or provide screen data 310).
Referring to claim 7, Theurer in view of Chittampally and Zhang, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a notification to a participant based on the primary portion of the content (Theurer, [0100], steps 564 and 572, screen change generated sent to the user is viewed as a notification to a participant based on the primary portion of the content).
Referring to claims 8-20, the claims encompass the same scope of the invention as that of the claims 1-7. Therefore, claims 8-20 are rejected on the same ground as the claims 1-7.
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 extension fee 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 LIANGCHE A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3992. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am to 6:30pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Liang-che Alex Wang
September 8, 2026
/LIANG CHE A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights