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 .
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 13, 16-26, and 31-32 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 17, 25, and 26 are amended. Claims 2-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 27-30 are canceled. Claims 31-32 are added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2025, 10/21/2025, and 03/24/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 13, 16-26, and 31-32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, recites “the second device”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a second device”.
Claim 5, line 2, recites “third device is further comprised in the first direction of the first device”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “third device is further included in the first direction of the first device” (specification para. [00221]).
Claim 5, line 7, recites “a first operation”. Examiner suggest “the first operation”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 10, lines 7-8, recite “the screen resolution of the first screen”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “screen resolution of the first screen”.
Claim 10, line 8, recite “the screen resolution of the second screen”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “screen resolution of the second screen”.
Claim 10, line 9, recites “the initial location”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “an initial location”.
Claim 13, lines 7-8, recite “the screen resolution of the first screen”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “screen resolution of the first screen”.
Claim 13, line 8, recite “the screen resolution of the second screen”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “screen resolution of the second screen”.
Claim 13, line 9, recites “the second moving velocity”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “a second moving velocity”.
Claim 16, line 2, recites “a second screen”. Examiner suggests “the second screen”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 17, line 3, recites “a second screen”. Examiner suggests “the second screen”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1 and claim 16.
Claim 18, line 3, recites “a second screen”. Examiner suggests “the second screen”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1 and claim 16.
Clam 19, line 2, recites “a connection to a second device”. Examiner suggests “the connection to the second device”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Clam 20, line 2, recites “a connection to a second device”. Examiner suggests “the connection to the second device”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Clam 21, line 2, recites “a connection to a second device”. Examiner suggests “the connection to the second device”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Clam 22, line 4, recites “a connection to a second device”. Examiner suggests “the connection to the second device”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 23, line 2, recites “a first operation”. Examiner suggest “the first operation”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 23, line 6, recites “a coordinate direction”. Examiner suggests “a coordinate direction of the second device”.
Claim 23, line 7 and line 8, recites “the device angle”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the device angle of the second device relative to the first device”.
Claim 23, line 8, recites “the device identifier”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the device identifier of the second device”.
Claim 23, lines 7-8, recites “the coordinate direction”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the coordinate direction of the second device”.
Claim 23, line 8, recites “the traversing direction”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the traversing direction of the second device”.
Claim 23, line 9, recites “a device table”. Examiner suggests “the device table”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Clam 23, line 2, recites “a connection to a second device”. Examiner suggests “the connection to the second device”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 24, line 7, recites “if the device angle after the movement”. Examiner suggest “when the device angle of the second device after the movement”, to positively recites the claim limitation and keep consistency in the claim language.
Claim 24, line 7, recites “the device angle before the movement”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “a device angle of the second device before the movement”.
Claim 24, lines 8-9, recites “the device angle after the movement”. Examiner suggest “the device angle of the second device after the movement”, to keep consistency in the claim language.
Claim 25, line 3, recites “the coordinate direction”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the coordinate direction of the second device”.
Claim 25, line 4, recites “the traversing direction”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the traversing direction of the second device”.
Claim 25, line 6, recites “if a connected third device exists”. Examiner suggests “when a connected third device exists”, to positively recites the claim limitation.
Claim 25, line 7 and line 8, recites “the device angle after movement”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the device angle of the second device after movement”.
Claim 25, line 7, recites “the traversing direction”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the traversing direction of the second device”.
Claim 25, line 10, recites “if the connected third device does not exist”. Examiner suggests “when the connected third device does not exist”, to positively recites the claim limitation.
Claim 31, line 15, recites “the second device”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a second device”.
Claim 32, line 3, recites “the first device”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a first device”.
Claim 32, line 3, recites “the first screen”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a first screen”.
Claim 32, lines 3-4, recites “the input device”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a input device”.
Claim 32, line 11, recites “the second device”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a second device”.
Claims 4 and 26 depend directly or indirectly from an objected claim therefore are also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-22, 25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19, line 1, recites “wherein the first direction is left or right”. It is unclear what the claim refers to “left or right”. Left or right of what?
Claim 20, line 1, recites “wherein the first direction is left or right”. It is unclear what the claim refers to “left or right”. Left or right of what?
Claim 20, lines 4-5, recites “the second device is moved from the first direction to middle”. It is unclear what the claim refers to “middle”. Middle of what?
Claim 21, line 5, recites “wherein the second direction is left or right”. It is unclear what the claim refers to “left or right”. Left or right of what?
Claim 22, line 1, recites “wherein the first direction is left or right”. It is unclear what the claim refers to “left or right”. Left or right of what?
Claim 25, lines 1-2, recites “wherein the coordinate direction comprises: left, right, and middle, the first direction is left or right”. It is unclear what the claim refers to “left, right, and middle” and “left or right”. Left, right, and middle of what? Left or right of what?
Claim 25, line 13, recites “after the movement is middle”. It is unclear what the claim refers to “middle”. Middle of what?
Claim 31, lines 5-8, recite “wherein the memory stores one or more programs, and when the one or more programs are executed by the processor, the terminal device is enabled to perform the following steps: displaying, by the first device on the first screen, a cursor corresponding to the input device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first device” “the first screen” and “the input device” in the claim. Moreover, it is unclear if the first device and “the terminal device” are the same or different devices. If the terminal device and the first device are different it is unclear how the terminal device causes all the claim steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer-readable storage device typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se, particularly when the specification is silent. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that the claims be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Claim 32 recites “[a] computer storage medium comprising a computer program”. The specification discloses “software module may be stored in a storage medium mature in the art, such as a random access memory, a flash memory, a read-only memory, a programmable read-only memory, an electrically erasable programmable memory, or a register. The storage medium is located in the memory”, para. [00683].
The specification also discloses that “[t]he storage medium includes various media that can store program code, such as a USB flash drive, a removable hard disk drive, a read-only memory (read- only memory, ROM), a random access memory (random access memory, RAM), a magnetic disk, or an optical disc.”, para. [00692]. The above disclosure provides examples of machine readable media and is therefore non-limiting. Moreover, the phrases “may be” and “such as” create doubt and therefore cannot be considered as to exclude non-transitory signals perse. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, there is a possibility that the computer readable medium can include a transitory signal, which is non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
Claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190294262 A1 – Lu et al. – A cursor control method applied to a cursor control system including a first electronic device, a second electronic device and a mouse, the first electronic device and the second electronic device respectively have a display screen displaying a data frame and a cursor. The method includes: when the mouse outputs the cursor on the first electronic device and a detection program of the first electronic device detects the cursor to move into a predetermined boundary of the display screen on the first electronic device, the detection program of the first electronic device instructs the cursor outputted by the mouse to switch from the first electronic device to the second electronic device; the mouse stops outputting the cursor to the first electronic device; and the mouse outputs the cursor to the second electronic device.
US 20250016864 A1 – Mou et al. – An input device that performs focus migration in which a focus device of the input device is switched from one terminal device (that is, a source host) to another terminal device (that is, a target host).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVELISSE MARTINEZ QUILES whose telephone number is (571)270-7618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/IM/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 9/9/26
