DETAILED ACTION
Claims 20-35 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-19 are original claims to patent US 10,893,092 B2 to Jeong et al. and claims 20-35 are newly added claims.
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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,893,092 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 14/517,092, filed on 10/17/2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/04/2026 is considered by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.97, 37 CFR 1.98, MPEP 609, and MPEP 1406, to the fullest extent of the items presented including any concise explanation. Documents not meeting particular criteria are lined through and not considered.
Specification Objections
The specification is object to under 37 CFR 1.177(a) as lacking a completely updated first sentence of the specification cross referencing other reissues applications. The specification amendment of 04/21/2026, line 4, uses double brackets (in a reissue application matter to be removed should be enclosed in single brackets; see 37 CFR 1.173, MPEP 1453). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 20-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2669788 to Kim et al (herein Kim ‘788), published 04/12/2013 in view of US 2014/0040803 A1 to Hyacinthe Briand (herein Briand ‘803).
Claim 20
Kim ‘788 shows an electronic device configured to communicate with a first external device and a second external device (Kim ‘788: figure 1; [0110]; [0116], an electronic device, using the controller, searches multiple external devices to be selected for communication), the electronic device comprising:
a display (Kim ‘788: figure 1, at least element 151);
communication circuitry (Kim ‘788: figure 1, at least elements 110 and 170);
at least one processor (Kim ‘788: figure 1, at least element 180; [0081]-[0082]); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to (Kim ‘788: figure 1, element 160; [0082]):
establish connections with the first external device and the second external device (Kim ‘788: [0110]; [0116], connected via elements 110 and 170);
receive a first input for designating a first application to be displayed on a first screen of split screens of the first external device (Kim ‘788: figures 6c and 6d; [0117]; [0129]);
receive a second input for designating a second application (Kim ‘788: figures 6c and 6d; [0117]; [0129]);
execute the first application exclusively on the electronic device (Kim ‘788: [0110], mirrored/displayed to other devices);
transmit, to the first external device, first data for displaying a first execution screen of the first application on the first external device (Kim ‘788: [0110]; [0114]; [0123]-[0124], [0130]; and see also [0104], [0106], [0107]);
execute the second application exclusively on the electronic device (Kim ‘788: [0110], plurality of applications mirrored/displayed to other devices);
To the extent Kim ‘788 does not explicitly state designating a second application to be displayed on a second screen of split screens of second external device, and transmitting data for displaying the second application on the second external device, Briand ‘803 demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share selectable content with multiple selected external devices (Briand ‘803: figure 5A; [0068]-[0069]; see also [0007]-[0008], [0012]). Further, Kim ‘788 demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share applications with multiple external devices (Kim ‘788: figure 1; [0110]; [0116], an electronic device, using the controller, searches multiple external devices to be selected for communication; figure 6c, showing many possible applications), devices with applications displayed on split screens (Kim ‘788: figures 6c and 6d; [0117]; [0129]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the applications shared by Kim ‘788 with some applications being designated for a second external device and sharing data with that second external device as suggested by the teachings of Briand ‘803 and Kim ‘788. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: both references are directed toward sharing content with external devices; a wide variety of devices are used and expected/desired by users today (Briand ‘803: [0007]); and the implementation of is an application of one known element and technique (sharing with an external device) with another known element (selecting and communicating with multiple external devices) yielding a predictable result.
As such, Kim ‘788 further shows:
receive, from the first external device or the second external device, user command information corresponding to a user input detected on the first external device or the second external device (Kim ‘788: [0120], “… mirroring UI may be displayed on the touchscreen of the mobile terminal … mirroring UI includes a user interface for controlling an application mirrored by the external device …”; figure 3; at least figures 7a and 7b, for example inputs from screen 151 to control application on 430; and at least figure 10b, element 1023 to control figure 10a, element 1013; [0154]); and
perform an operation of the first application or the second application according to the received user command information (Kim ‘788: figures 7a and 7b).
Claim 21
To the extent Kim ‘788 does not explicitly state wherein the first application is an application which is not executed by the electronic device until the first input is received, and wherein the second application is an application which is not executed by the electronic device until the second input is received, Kim ‘788 does not show the applications currently executing until after being shared with an external device (Kim ‘788: figures 6-13). Further, Briand ‘803 also does not show currently executing the shared content until it is shared (Briand ‘803: figures 4A-5G). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the applications shared by Kim ‘788 as not being executed by the electronic devices until input is received designating for sharing as suggested by the teachings of Kim ‘788 and Briand ‘803. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: both references are directed toward sharing content with external devices; and the implementation of is an application of one known element and technique (selecting a non-executing application when usage is desired) with the other known elements yielding a predictable result.
Claim 22
Kim ‘788 and Briand ‘803 show the electronic device of claim 20, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
receive the first input for designating the first application to be displayed on the first screen of split screens of the first external device and a third input for designating a third application to be displayed on a third screen of split screens of the first external device (Kim ‘788: figures 6c and 6d, showing a first and third application selected from many applications; [0117]; [0129]); and
transmit, to the first external device, first data for displaying the first execution screen of the first application on the first screen of split screens of the first external device and third data for displaying the third execution screen of the third application on the third screen of split screens of the first external device (Kim ‘788: [0110]; [0114]; [0123]-[0124]; and see also [0104], [0106], [0107]).
Claim 23
Kim ‘788 and Briand ‘803 show the electronic device of claim 20, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to provide a list of applications, and
wherein the the first application and the second application are selected from among the list of applications (Kim ‘788: figure 6c; [0129]).
Claim 24
Kim ‘788 and Briand ‘803 show the electronic device of claim 23, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
display a first object corresponding to the first external device and a second object corresponding to the second external device (Briand ‘803: figure 5A; [0068]-[0069]; see also [0007]-[0008], [0012]);
receive a third input for selecting at least one of the first object or the second object (Briand ‘803: figure 5A; [0068]-[0069]; see also [0007]-[0008], [0012]); and
based on receiving the third input, share at least one application from among the list of applications with the external device corresponding to the selected object (Briand ‘803: figure 5A; [0068]-[0069]; see also [0007]-[0008], [0012]).
Claim 25
Kim ‘788 and Briand ‘803 show the electronic device of claim 20, wherein, the first application is executed based on designating the first application, and the second application is executed based on designating the second application (Kim ‘788: figure 6d).
Claim 26
Kim ‘788 and Briand ‘803 show the electronic device of claim 20,
wherein, based on executing the first application, the first execution screen of the first application is displayed on the first external device without displaying the first execution screen on the electronic device (Kim ‘788: figure 7a and figure 7b; [0134]-[0135]; a first execution screen of the game application is displayed on the external device display 430, while a different execution screen of the game application is displayed on the electronic device display 151), and
wherein, based on executing the second application, the second execution screen of the second application is displayed on the second external device without displaying the second execution screen on the electronic device (Kim ‘788: figure 7a and figure 7b; [0134]-[0135]; Kim ‘788 in view of Briand ‘803 show it is obvious to display different applications on a different (a second) external device, and therefore, as in the previous limitation Kim ‘788 shows it is obvious to display a different execution screen of a second application displayed on the second external device as compared to the execution screen of the second application displayed on the electronic device just as in the previous limitation).
Claims 27-35
The limitations of claims 27-35 correspond to the limitations of claims 20-26, and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner's arguments filed 04/21/2026 (herein Response) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Response argues the cited prior art fails to show the newly added limitations, “receive, from the first external device or the second external device, user command information corresponding to a user input detected on the first external device or the second external device”, and “perform an operation of the first application or the second application according to the received user command information” (Response: page 13).
This argument is not persuasive. While it is true figure 7 and the accompanying description of Kim ‘788 shows manipulating the configuration of the mirrored displays, figure 7 also shows a mirror device receiving inputs that will be transmitted and used to perform operations on the application (Kim ‘788: figure 7b, control pads/buttons to control a game). Figure 10 of Kim ‘788 shows video controls 1023 for controlling video playing 1013. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
The following objections/rejections from the Office Action of 12/22/2025 are withdrawn in view of the Patent Owner Response of 04/21/2026: (1) the previous objections to the Specification (although the currently filed amendment requires correction, see above); (2) Objections to the Declaration; (3) Objections to claims 23, 28, and 31; Rejections of claims 20-26 and 35 under 35 USC 112(b)/2nd (the “individually or collectively” language is directed toward “the at least one processor” language); and (4) Rejections under 35 USC 251 with regard to the Declaration and Recapture.
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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferee:
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights