CTNF 19/024,975 CTNF 81222 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 2. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA 3. Claim s 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Newendorp et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0092270, hereinafter “Newendorp”) . 4. As per claim 8, Newendorp teaches a method, applied to a second device 100, figure 1a), the method comprising: obtaining a second native event of the second device in response to an input operation performed by a user on the second device (user input operation 612, figure 6b, handled by application, paragraph 114); and broadcasting the second native event of the second device (figure 6c, broadcasting the response native event 626 and 724, figure 7c). 5. As per claim 9, Newendorp teaches a method, further comprising: broadcasting a device identifier of the second device (802 to 804, figure 8a), wherein the device identifier of the second device represents an identity of the second device (806 to 808, figure 8a), and the device identifier of the second device corresponds to the second native event of the second device (814 to 816, figure 8a). 6. As per claim 10, Newendorp teaches a method, further comprising: broadcasting an event type or event coordinates of the second device (802 to 806, figure 8a), wherein the event type or the event coordinates of the second device correspond to the second native event of the second device (808 to 810, figure 8a), the event type of the second device represents an input manner of the user on the second device (812, figure 8a), and the event coordinates of the second device represent coordinates corresponding to an input of the user on the second device (814 to 816, figure 8a) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 7. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 1, 3 – 7, 11, 13, and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newendorp in view of Wood, JR. et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0277498, hereinafter “Wood”) . 9. As per claims 1, 13, and 20, Newendorp teaches a method, a first device (100, figure 1a), and medium comprising: at least one processor (processor 120, figure 1a); and a memory (memory 102, figure 1a) storing at least one computer program (operating system 126, figure 1a), and the at least one processor is configured to run the at least one computer program to cause the first device to perform operations (processor runs the computer program stored in memory, paragraph 32) comprising: obtaining a first native event of the first device in response to an input operation performed by a user on the first device (user input operation 612, figure 6b, handled by application, paragraph 114); receiving a second native event that is broadcast by a second device (second device 604, figure 6c, broadcasting the response native event 626 and 724, figure 7c), wherein the second native event of the second device is generated by an input operation performed by the user on the second device (on device 604, user input figure 7c), and the second device and the first device are in a same distributed system (second native event generated by the user at the second device and in the same distributed system as the first device, figures 6b and 6c); virtualizing the second native event of the second device into an agent event of the first device (virtualizing the task to operate accordingly, paragraph 179); determining, based on the first native event and the agent event of the first device, whether an input of the user is a multi-device input (tasks are multi-device input events as both devices 602 and 604 can serve as input control of 606, paragraphs 181-184); when it is determined that the input of the user is the multi-device input, determining whether the first device is an execution device (determining tasks to be executed, paragraph 181); and when it is determined that the first device is the execution device, executing a service corresponding to a multi-device input event (upon determination of tasks handling the execution, paragraphs 183 – 187, figures 7 and 8). Newendorp does not appear to explicitly disclose the user input is a combination input as a multi-device combination input. Wood discloses an input of the user is a multi-device combination input and executing a service corresponding to a multi-device combination input event (figure 12a, 451 and 1251 serves as a multi-device combination input, paragraph 268). Newendorp and Wood are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor tertiary device control handling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Newendorp and Wood before him or her, to modify the control handling of Newendorp to include the enhancements of Wood because it would allow for an enhance dynamic functionality for device management. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance input device control as both cited prior art are by the same Applicant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wood with Newendorp to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims. 10. As per claim 11, Newendorp teaches a method, further comprising: receiving a first native event that is broadcast by a first device (device 604, figure 6c, broadcasting the response native event 626 and 724, figure 7c), wherein the first native event that is broadcast by the first device is generated by an input operation performed by the user on the first device (on device 604, user input figure 7c), and the first device and the second device are in a same distributed system (second native event generated by the user at the second device and in the same distributed system as the first device, figures 6b and 6c); virtualizing the first native event broadcast by the first device into an agent event of the second device (virtualizing the task to operate accordingly, paragraph 179); determining, based on the second native event and the agent event of the second device, whether an input of the user is a multi-device input (tasks are multi-device input events as both devices 602 and 604 can serve as input control of 606, paragraphs 181-184); when it is determined that the input of the user is a multi-device input, determining whether the second device is an execution device (determining tasks to be executed, paragraph 181); and when it is determined that the second device is the execution device, executing a service corresponding to a multi-device input event (upon determination of tasks handling the execution, paragraphs 183 – 187, figures 7 and 8). Newendorp does not appear to explicitly disclose the user input is a combination input as a multi-device combination input. Wood discloses an input of the user is a multi-device combination input and executing a service corresponding to a multi-device combination input event (figure 12a, 451 and 1251 serves as a multi-device combination input, paragraph 268). Newendorp and Wood are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor tertiary device control handling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Newendorp and Wood before him or her, to modify the control handling of Newendorp to include the enhancements of Wood because it would allow for an enhance dynamic functionality for device management. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make such modification in order to enhance input device control as both cited prior art are by the same Applicant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wood with Newendorp to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims. 11. Newendorp modified by the teachings of Wood as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 3 and 15, Newendorp teaches a method and device, further comprising: receiving a device identifier that is broadcast by the second device (802, figure 8a receiving device signal), wherein the device identifier of the second device represents an identity of the second device (806, figure 8a, identify the device), and the device identifier of the second device corresponds to the second native event of the second device (808, figure 8a, second native event information). 12. Newendorp modified by the teachings of Wood as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 4 and 16, Newendorp teaches a method and device, further comprising: receiving an event type or event coordinates that are broadcast by the second device, wherein the event type or the event coordinates of the second device correspond to the native second event of the second device (steps 822 to 824, figure 8b), the event type of the second device represents an input manner of the user on the second device (steps 826 and 828, figure 8b), and the event coordinates of the second device represent coordinates corresponding to an input of the user on the second device (steps 838 to 840, figure 8c). 13. Newendorp modified by the teachings of Wood as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 5 and 17, Newendorp teaches a method and device, further comprising: broadcasting the first native event of the first device (figure 7a, 702 native event is broadcasted). 14. Newendorp modified by the teachings of Wood as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 6 and 18, Newendorp teaches a method and device, further comprising: broadcasting a device identifier of the first device, wherein the device identifier of the first device represents an identity of the first device, and the device identifier of the first device corresponds to the first native event of the first device (steps to 816, figure 8a). 15. Newendorp modified by the teachings of Wood as seen in claim 1 above, as per claims 7 and 19, Newendorp teaches a method and device, further comprising: broadcasting an event type or event coordinates of the first device, wherein the event type or the event coordinates of the first device correspond to the first native event of the first device (steps 806 to 808, figure 8a), the event type of the first device represents an input manner of the user on the first device (steps 810 to 812, figure 8a), and the event coordinates of the first device represent coordinates corresponding to an input of the user on the first device (steps 814 to 816, figure 8a) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 16. Claim s 2, 12, and 14 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 07-96 AIA 17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Caine/Graessley/Chalabi/Clarke/Chalmers has teachings of multi-device control handling in a broadcast system . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURANGZEB HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8625. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM to 3 PM. 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, Henry Tsai can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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. AH /HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 2 Art Unit: 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 3 Art Unit: 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 4 Art Unit: 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 5 Art Unit: 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 6 Art Unit: 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 7 Art Unit: 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 8 Art Unit: 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 9 Art Unit: 2184 Application/Control Number: 19/024,975 Page 10 Art Unit: 2184
Prosecution Insights