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 .
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
This action is response to the Applicant’s response to the Restriction/Election requirements of 10/21/2025. The Applicant elected claims 1-4 for continued prosecution without traverse.
Claims 1-13 are pending in which claims 1-4 stand rejected and claims 5-13 are non-elected in this Office Action. Claim 1 is independent.
The Applicant is encouraged to amend the application with additional new claims of different categories, such as medium and method, and/or dependent claims containing the subject matters of the withdrawn claims.
Remarks
Both the instant application and the WIPO application PCT/US2018/015913 filed 01/30/2018) are continuation of the same parent application, U.S. application 15/418954 (filed 01/30/2017, U.S. Patent 12204555 issued 01/21/2025). The Written Opinion on the WIPO application and the rejections made to the parent application were thoroughly reviewed and partially incorporated in the instant action in which the parent application was examined by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, the claim recites "… transforms the processed data representing the next image, to transformed data representing a transformed image, …", in which "to transformed data" seems to be typographical erroneous.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting Rejections
The rejections will be presented as the allowable subject matter is established and the rejections deems necessary.
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12204555 (15/418954 filed 01/30/2017, issued 01/21/2025)). Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the U.S. Patent 12204555 contain elements of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not all in fact been patented.
Patent 12204555 claim 1
Instant Application claims 1-4
1. A display-server system, comprising:
a server processor;
an application unit processed by the server processor;
a server network interface device communicatively connected to the server
processor and the communication network; and
a server memory communicatively connected to the server processor, the server memory includes instruction for causing the server processor to:
send by the server processor an image to a user device over the communication network;
receive by the server processor from the user device in respect of the image a first input from the user device over the communication network;
process by the server processor the application unit for the first input received to obtain a processed result corresponding to a next image; and
deliver to the user device the processed result, together with tags, the processed result is renderable by the user device as the next image and the tags are indicative of the first input received by the processor; and further comprising:
a user device processor;
a transformer processed by the user device processor;
a display communicatively connected to the transformer;
a user device network interface device communicatively connected to the application unit over the communication network;
a user device memory communicatively connected to the user device processor, the user device memory includes instruction for causing the user device processor to:
render the image in the display, the image corresponds to the processed result;
receive a second input to the display in respect of the image;
deliver the second input over the communication network to the application unit;
the server memory includes further instruction for causing the server processor to:
receive the second input by the application unit;
process the second input by the application unit to obtain a next processed result corresponds to a next image for delivery to the display;
send the next processed result, together with second tags, the second tags are indicative of the second input;
the user device memory includes further instruction for causing the user device processor to:
receive the second processed result and second tags from the server processor;
receive a third input to the user device processor prior to receiving the
second processed result and second tags; and
transform by the transformer the second processed result to obtain a third
image displayed in the display, based on comparison by the transformer of the third
input to the second tags.
1. A system, comprising:
a server computer;
an application unit of the server computer;
a user device communicatively connected to the server computer over a communications network;
a display of the user device;
an input device of the user device;
a transformer of the user device;
wherein the server computer receives input from the user device in respect of an
image displayed at the user device, processes the application unit with the input, and
sends tags and processed data representing a next image to the user device, the tags relate to the input received by the server computer for processing, the tags specifying values of the input processed by the application unit to obtain the processed data;
wherein the user device receives new input, via the input device, in respect of the image displayed at the user device, the new input is received by the user device after the input is delivered by the user device to the server computer and before the tags and the processed data representing the next image are received by the user device from the server computer;
wherein the transformer of the user device compares the tags to new input to the
user device in respect of the image, and, responsive to receiving the processed data
representing the next image from the server computer, transforms the processed data
representing the next image, to transformed data representing a transformed image, image, based on a difference between the values of the input specified by the tags and the new input, and
the user device outputs on the display the transformed data as the transformed image , the transformed image being different from the next image and being output by the user device without further processing by the application unit of the server computer.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the transformer determines an offset of an area of the transformed image for output in the display of the user device, based on the difference between the values of the input specified by the tags and the new input, and the user device outputs the area in the display at the offset.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the user device includes a processor, memory, and the input device, the memory includes a transform module of the transformer for operating on the tags received from the server computer.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the server computer includes a processor and memory, the memory includes the application unit processed by the processor to obtain the processed data, and the server computer sends the tags to the user device bundled with the processed data.
“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
For application naming 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 CFR 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.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Mahajan et al.: “ENABLING A GRAPHICAL WINDOW MODIFICATION COMMAND TO BE APPLIED TO A REMOTELY GENERATED GRAPHICAL WINDOW”, (United States Patent Application Publication US 20060288306 A1, DATE PUBLISHED 2006-12-21 and DATE FILED 2005-06-21, hereafter “Mahajan"), in view of
PAHLAVAN et al.: “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SCROLLING A REMOTE APPLICATION”, (WIPO Patent Application Publication EP 2419810 B1, DATE PUBLISHED 2018-12-26 and DATE FILED 2010-04-05, hereafter “PAHLAVAN").
As per claim 1, Mahajan discloses a system, comprising:
a server computer (See [0009], "Remote terminal sessions involve a first remote machine acting as a server configured to remote data to a second local machine acting as a client");
an application unit of the server computer (See [0009], “Applications operating on the remote machine can generate server application graphical windows. The remote terminal session is configured to enable output or graphics of the server application graphical window(s) to be forwarded to the local machine.");
a user device communicatively connected to the server computer over a communications network (See [0009] and [0011], “Remote terminal sessions involve a first remote machine acting as a server configured to remote data to a second local machine acting as a client" and "a system 100 configured to support a remote terminal session between a remote machine 102 and a local machine 104 over a network 106.");
a display of the user device (See [0001], "The client machine also may itself generate application graphical windows for display on the client machine.");
an input device of the user device (See [0012], user commands may be initiated by input devices, such as keyboard and mouse, among others);
a transformer of the user device (See Fig. 7 and [0021], “Local machine 104A includes a client remote application manager 710, and may include one or more client applications 712 operating on a client operating system (OS) 714.", further see [0026], “The client remote application manager is also configured to cause a proxy graphical window 112A to be generated on local machine 104A and to cause the representation of the server application graphical window 11 0A to be painted over the proxy graphical window 112A in the form of a remotely generated application graphical window 116A.");
wherein the server computer receives input from the user device in respect of an image displayed at the user device (See [0031] "in this instance, the server remote application manager 702 is configured to determine whether the user command relates to a window/resize operation relative to a graphical window involved in the remote terminal session. Here the user command is the received user input from the user device and the command is "in respect of" the window and the window is the image displayed at the user device),
processes the application unit with the input (See [0031], Once a determination is made that a move resize command is being initiated, the server remote application manager 702 takes an action based on the user selected graphical window move/resize mode, In this particular implementation, if the move/resize mode is full-image, then server remote application manager 702 handles the command at the server and updates the server application graphical window 110A accordingly),
sends tags and processed data representing a next image to the user device (See [0031], As the server application graphical window is updated, corresponding representations are sent to the client, and the representations are manifested as an updated remotely generated application graphical window 116A. The size or location of the proxy graphical window 112A is adjusted to correspond to the updated remotely generated application graphical window 116A. The size adjusted (resized) proxy graphical window is the next image represented by corresponding representations as manifest to the client which reads on tags and processed data),
the tags specifying values of the input processed by the application unit to obtain the processed data (See [0031], “As the server application graphical window is updated, corresponding representations are sent to the client, and the representations are manifested as an updated remotely generated application graphical window 116A. The size or location of the proxy graphical window 112A is adjusted to correspond to the updated remotely generated opplic0tion graphical window 116A. Here the size and location are the values of the input processed by the application unit to obtain the processed data); and
wherein the user device receives new input, via the input device, in respect of the image displayed at the user device (See [0070], user input or commands related to the proxy graphical window are automatically sent to the server machine as part of the remote terminal session).
Mahajan does not explicitly teach the new input is received by the user device after the input is delivered by the user device to the server computer and before the tags and the processed data representing the next image are received by the user device from the server computer.
On the other hand, as in the same endeavor, PAHLAVAN teaches the new input is received by the user device after the input is delivered by the user device to the server computer and before the tags and the processed data representing the next image are received by the user device from the server computer (See [0097]-[0099], the OS module 324 may report to the agent module 322 when a dialog box and/or window opens as a result of user inputs (e.g., pointer movements and clicks) received from the client device 202, When the OS module 324 reports that a dialog box and/or window has opened, the agent module 322 may determine that the dialog box and/or window is to be displayed to the user at the client device 202, On the client side, the client remote access module 452 receives the message and sends the received message to the local view module 540. Upon reading the received message, the local view module 540 may determine whether the newly opened dialog box or window is currently shown in the remote application view 704).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's application was filed to combine the teaching of PAHLAVAN with Mahajan reference because Mahajan is dedicated to enabling a graphical window modification command to be applied to a remotely generated graphical window, PAHLAVAN is dedicated to scrolling a remote application, and the combined teaching would have enhanced Mahajan's system to facilitate user interaction, such as scrolling, with an application running on a server from a client device and provide an improved experience for users at the client device.
Mahajan in view of PAHLAVAN further teaches the following:
wherein the transformer of the user device compares the tags to the new input to the user device in respect of the image (See PAHLAVAN: [0099], The local view module 540 may do this, for example, by comparing the coordinates and dimensions of the dialog box or window with the coordinates and dimensions of the area 1510 of the display output 1520 displayed in the remote application view 704.), and,
responsive to receiving the processed data representing the next image from the server computer, transforms the processed data representing the next image, to transformed data representing a transformed image, based on a difference between the values of the input specified by the tags and the new input, and the user device outputs on the display the transformed data as the transformed image, the transformed image being different from the next image and being output by the user device without further processing by the application unit of the server computer (See PAHLAVAN: [0099], If the dialog box or window is not currently shown in the remote application view 704, then the local view module 540 may command the remote view module 535 to scroll and/or zoom out the remote application view 704 by a certain amount so that the dialog box or window is shown in the remote application view 704. The local view module 540 may determine the amount that the remote application view 704 needs to be scrolled and/or zoomed out based on differences between the coordinates and/or dimensions of the dialog box or window and the coordinates and/or dimensions of the area 1510 of the remote application view 704. An example of this is shown in FIGS. 16A and 16B; and [0031]-[0032], “As the server application graphical window is updated, corresponding representations are sent to the client, and the representations are manifested as an updated remotely generated application graphical window 116A.” and “the server remote application manager 702 is configured to send the user commands to the client remote application manager 710. An outline of the proxy graphical window 112Areflecting the user command is generated on client desktop 116A. Upon completion of the client command, positional data relating to the new size and/or location of the proxy graphical window is sent to the remote machine where the server application graphical window is updated to synchronize with the new proxy graphical window.”).
As per claim 2, Mahajan in view of PAHLAVAN further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the transformer determines an offset of an area of the transformed image for output in the display of the user device, based on the difference between the values of the input specified by the tags and the new input, and the user device outputs the area in the display at the offset (See PAHLAVAN: [0099], the client remote access module 452 receives the message and sends the received message to the local view module 540. Upon reading the received message, the local view module 540 may determine whether the newly opened dialog box or window is currently shown in the remote application view 704. The local view module 540 may do this, for example, by comparing the coordinates and dimensions of the dialog box or window with the coordinates and dimensions of the area 1510 of the display output 1520 displayed in the remote application view 704. If the dialog box or window is not currently shown in the remote application view 704, then the local view module 540 may command the remote view module 535 to scroll and/or zoom out the remote application view 704 by a certain amount so that the dialog box or window is shown in the remote application view 704. The local view module 540 may determine the amount that the remote application view 704 needs to be scrolled and/or zoomed out based on differences between the coordinates and/or dimensions of the dialog box or window and the coordinates and/or dimensions of the area 1510 of the remote application view 704.).
As per claim 3, Mahajan in view of PAHLAVAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the user device includes a processor, memory, and the input device, the memory includes a transform module of the transformer for operating on the tags received from the server computer (See Mahajan: [0059], components of first machine 1001 can include, but are not limited to, one or more processors 1004 (e.g., any of microprocessors, controllers, and the like), a system memory 1006; and at Fig. 7 and [0021], “Local machine 104A includes a client remote application manager 710, and may include one or more client applications 712 operating on a client operating system (OS) 714.", further see [0026], “The client remote application manager is also configured to cause a proxy graphical window 112A to be generated on local machine 104A and to cause the representation of the server application graphical window 11 0A to be painted over the proxy graphical window 112A in the form of a remotely generated application graphical window 116A.").
As per claim 4, Mahajan in view of PAHLAVAN does not explicitly teach the system of claim 1, wherein the server computer includes a processor and memory, the memory includes the application unit processed by the processor to obtain the processed data, and the server computer sends the tags to the user device bundled with the processed data (See Mahajan: [0001], a remote terminal session between a client machine and a server machine. The remote terminal session (RTS) can enable graphical user interface windows (hereinafter, "graphical windows"), such as application graphical windows, to be generated on the server machine; and PAHLAVAN: [0024]-[0025], the total amount of memory of the client device 202 could be less than the total amount of memory in a server 204 and a server 204 may represent a computer or a suitable device with a processor)
Related Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
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.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEN S LU whose telephone number is (571)272-4114. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-19, Mid-Flex 2 hours.
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, Mr. Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on 571-270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KUEN S LU /Kuen S Lu/
Art Unit 2165
Primary Patent Examiner
October 9, 2026
