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 .
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1:
This claim recites that the transmission unit is configured to:
"transmit, to the external terminal device, screen data that are of a different screen which is different from the screen displayed on the display unit of the information processing device and that are generated by the screen generation unit, when a target event, which is an event requiring an alteration of the vertical width and/or the horizontal width of the screen displayed on the external display unit, has not occurred"
But it then recites:
"transmit, upon occurrence of the target event…screen data on a first content obtained by altering a size of a pre-alteration screen, which is the different screen displayed on the external display unit when the target event occurs."
So the claim first recites (1) that the different screen is generated when the target event has not occurred; and (2) the "the different screen displayed on the external display unit when the target event occurs.”
This is a contradiction. The different screen cannot both be displayed when the target event doesn't occur and when the target event does occur.
Maybe applicant means here is that the pre-alteration screen is the different screen that would be displayed when the target event doesn’t occur, but it currently says the opposite of this. It’s not really clear what applicant is claiming here.
Regarding claims 2-7:
Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1; claim 6 and 7 contain similar language.
Regarding claim 8:
It is dependent on claim 1.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2024/0378009) in view of Harper et al. (US 2012/0176396)
Regarding claim 1:
Zhou discloses:
An information processing device (Fig. 8), comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive external display unit information, which is information on a vertical width and a horizontal width of a display unit of an external terminal device (Fig. 8: 150 or 160; where as per Fig. 17A step S2102 it receives “screen display direction” information, which is information on the width and/or height);
a screen generation unit configured to generate, based on the external display unit information, screen data of a screen to be displayed on the display unit of the external terminal device (e.g., starting from Fig. 17 step S2105); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the external terminal device, the screen data generated by the screen generation unit (Fig. 17A: S2108; paragraph 287)
wherein the transmission unit is further configured to:
transmit, upon occurrence of the target event, screen data generated by the screen generation unit to the external terminal device, the screen data including: screen data on a first content obtained by altering a size of a pre-alteration screen, which is the different screen displayed on the external display unit when the target event occurs, corresponding to an altered vertical width and an altered horizontal width of the external display unit (paragraph 285; steps S2110-S2113); and screen data on a second content (as shown in, e.g., Fig. 9a(g), it might also have a second content B); and
wherein the second content, generated in the external display unit, is displayed in a region due to a difference between a pre-altered vertical width and the corresponding post-altered vertical width displayed on the external display unit, and between a pre-altered horizontal width and the post-altered horizontal width of the external display unit (Fig. 17: S1220; Fig. 9a(g); paragraph 150).
Zhou does not disclose:
Wherein the transmission unit is further configured to:
"transmit, to the external terminal device, screen data that are of a different screen which is different from the screen displayed on the display unit of the information processing device and that are generated by the screen generation unit, when a target event, which is an event requiring an alteration of the vertical width and/or the horizontal width of the screen displayed on the external display unit, has not occurred"
Harper discloses:
transmit, to the external terminal device, screen data that are of a different screen which is different from the screen displayed on the display unit of the information processing device and that are generated by the screen generation unit, when a target event, which is an event requiring an alteration of the vertical width and/or the horizontal width of the screen displayed on the external display unit, has not occurred (Fig. 6A: 630; paragraph 41 -- note it might display a different screen whether or not the screen requires resizing, which is a separate test).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application has filed to include in Zhou the elements taught by Harper.
The rationale is as follows:
Zhou and Harper are directed to the same field of art.
Harper discloses this allows displaying an application on one display and controls for it on another (paragraph 41), improving usability. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Zhou in view of Harper discloses:
further comprising a mode determination unit configured to determine a mode of a screen displayed on the external display unit from among a plurality of modes, wherein the screen generation unit is configured to generate the screen data based on the mode determined by the mode determination unit (Zhou Fig. 17A: step S2106).
Regarding claim 3:
Zhou in view of Harper discloses:
wherein the plurality of modes include: a first mode in which a screen displayed on the external display unit is the same screen as a screen displayed on a display unit of the information processing device (Fig. 17: S2106, S2108); and a second mode in which the screen displayed on the external display unit is a different screen from the screen displayed on the display unit of the information processing device (Zhou Fig. 17: S2106, S2110; or alternatively Harper paragraph 41 as discussed above).
Regarding claim 4:
Zhou discloses:
wherein when, in an occasion of occurrence of the target event, the mode determined by the mode determination unit is the first mode, the second content is a content associated with the first content (in Zhou as per Fig. 6B(e), where from the figure it is clearly associated, but alternatively as per Harper paragraph 41 where it is an application on one and controls for the application on another).
Regarding claim 5:
Zhou discloses:
wherein the occasion of occurrence of the target event is: an occasion of: identifying a longer horizontal width of the display unit of the information processing device than the vertical width thereof; and identifying a longer vertical width of the external display unit than the horizontal width thereof; or an occasion of: identifying a shorter horizontal width of the display unit of the information processing device than a vertical width thereof; and identifying a shorter vertical width of the external display unit than a horizontal width thereof (Zhou Fig. 17: S2105 or S2114, where by “screen display direction” it means portrait or landscape).
Regarding claims 6-7:
All elements positively recited have been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 8:
Zhou in view of Harper discloses:
wherein, in a case where a first mode is adopted, the screen of the second content is a user interface (UI) for operating the first content (Harper discloses this could be displayed on the external terminal in, e.g., paragraph 41); and
in a case where a second mode is adopted, the screen of the second content is a screen unrelated to both the screen of the first content and the screen displayed on the display unit of the information processing device (as shown in, e.g., Zhou Fig. 9A(g), there might be additional display information B that wasn’t shown on the other screen and isn’t shown in a first mode).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (starting page 6) that Zhou does not disclose the new language of the claims, including new claim 8. It is true that Zhou doesn’t disclose the entirety of it; Harper is now relied upon to teach the missing elements. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the new ground of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights