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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 7, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Moving a Target Image Across a First Screen Edge to a Second Host Display Device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 15, 18, and 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3, 15, and 23, Jain (US 20180113663 A1), Chen et al. (US 20120212575 A1), and Albulet (US 20060140166 A1) are the closest prior art. Albulet teaches a mouse device transmits a null packet in response to a poll packet from a computer 2 in a sniff period ([0029]). The prior art does not detail each and every limitation of claims 3, 15, and 23.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Jain, specifically figures 6-8, and Chen are the closest related art. Jain and Chen do not detail each and every limitation of claims 6 and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 13, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain (US 20180113663 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 21, Jain teaches a method applied to an input device, comprising:
a memory or non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions ([0090], “devices have memory as non-transitory computer readable medium, RAM and/or ROM”); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors ([0089], “thin client devices include processors adapted to carry out their respective functions by being programmed with software, i.e. one or more computer programs”), cause the input device to:
send first sending data to a plurality of host devices, wherein the first sending data comprises first input device data, wherein the first input device data enables a first focus host device of the plurality of host devices to display a target image moving along with movement of the input device (Figs. 5-6 show moving a frame 59 from a first display to a second display using a mouse M. [0076], Each display has a respective thin client 51 and 52. The first focus host device will be thin client 51 which displays a frame 59 moving along with movement of the mouse M. See Fig. 8, first step. Examiner notes first sending data is the movement of frame 59 which is sent to a plurality of thin clients 51 and 52 as shown in figs. 5-8); and
send, when the target image moves across a first screen edge of the first focus host device and when the first screen edge is near a second focus host device of the plurality of host devices, second sending data to the plurality of host devices (See Figs. 6-7, [0080], “If the frame 59 is dragged across the first browser until the right edge of said first browser and stays there for more than a time Δt (as seen on FIG. 6), an event “cross right edge” is generated and sent by the first browser to the OWS server 47 together with the input source signal detail (e.g. URL where the input source signal can be found) and the identifier WZP for the destination browser (in this case the second browser associated with display 56 (P=2).” See Fig. 8, second through fifth steps),
wherein the second sending data comprises second input device data ([0078, 0080], event “cross right edge” and the identifier WZP for the for the destination browser and display 56 (P=2). See Fig. 8, second through fifth steps), and
wherein the second input device data enables the second focus host device to display the target image (See figs. 6-7 wherein frame 59 is moved to the second display 56. See Fig. 8, final step).
Regarding claim 7, Jain teaches sending the first sending data to the plurality of host devices comprises sending the first input device data to the first focus host device and a non- focus host device of the plurality of host devices (Figs. 3-4, 6-8, [0075, 0080], a mouse moving a frame 59 can send the frame data to a first thin client such as 45 or 51 and a server 47 wherein the first thin client is the first hocus host device and the server 47 is a non-focus device. Note, within fig. 3, the non-focus device can also be second thin client 48).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Jain teaches before sending the first sending data to the plurality of host devices, the method further comprises selecting one host device from the plurality of host devices as the first focus host device ([0082], a user can setup his workspace which determines which display and thin client will be the first focus host device).
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.
Claims 2, 14, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 20180113663 A1), as applied to claims 1, 13, and 21 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20120212575 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 22, Jain teaches wherein a first link between the input device and the first focus host device is in an active state (Fig. 5, wherein first display 55 is currently displaying the frame 59 and movement data received from mouse M is link data), wherein a second link between the input device and a non-focus host device of the plurality of host devices is in a keepalive state (Fig. 8, steps 1-5, wherein keepalive state corresponds to display 56 being on but not currently displaying the frame 59), wherein the first link and the second link are wired connections of a plurality of one-to-one links between the input device and the plurality of host devices ([0058-0059], Figs. 5-8).
Jain does not teach the limitation wherein the first link and the second link are wireless connections.
Chen teaches a thin client device receives cursor inputs from a wireless mouse ([0029]). The combination of Jain and Chen result in the limitation of a first link and a second link are wireless connections as Jain figures 5-8 teaches a plurality of one to one links between the mouse and the thin clients 51 and 52 and Chen [0029] teaches the mouse can communicate with the thin client wirelessly.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jain with Chen such that the mouse communicates with the thin clients wirelessly as this amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale (B). In the current instance, Jain’s wired mouse is substituted with Chen’s wireless mouse. The Jain prior art contains a wired mouse which differs from the claimed input device by the substitution of a wireless device. As Chen teaches, the substituted wireless mouse device and its functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a wired mouse for a wireless mouse, and the results of this substitution would have been predictable as the mouse still provides the same function of moving and selecting images/icons or, in the current instance, Jain’s frame 59, within a display or a plurality of displays such as Jain’s displays 55 and 56.
Regarding claim 19, Jain teaches a wired connection of a one-to-many link between the input device and the plurality of host devices (See figs. 6-8 which shows a one-to-many link between mouse and a thin client 51 to many thin client devices 52-54), and wherein the instructions ([0074] teaches display data instructions are executed by a thin client), when executed by the one or more processors ([0026, 0071, 0089], “the thin client units comprising processing means.” [0062-0063] teach a processor executes programs), further cause the input device to further send the first sending data to the plurality of host devices comprises sending the first input device data to the first focus host device and a non- focus host device of the plurality of host devices (Figs. 3-4, 6-8, [0075, 0080], a mouse moving a frame 59 can send the frame data to a first thin client such as 45 or 51 and a server 47 wherein the first thin client is the first hocus host device and the server 47 is a non-focus device. Note, within fig. 3, the non-focus device can also be second thin client 48).
Jain does not teach a wireless connection, however, Chen teaches a thin client device receives cursor inputs from a wireless mouse ([0029]). The combination of Jain and Chen result in the limitation of a first link and a second link are wireless connections as Jain figures 5-8 teaches a plurality of one to one links between the mouse and the thin clients 51 and 52 and Chen [0029] teaches the mouse can communicate with the thin client wirelessly.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jain with Chen such that the mouse communicates with the thin clients wirelessly as this amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale (B). In the current instance, Jain’s wired mouse is substituted with Chen’s wireless mouse. The Jain prior art contains a wired mouse which differs from the claimed input device by the substitution of a wireless device. As Chen teaches, the substituted wireless mouse device and its functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a wired mouse for a wireless mouse, and the results of this substitution would have been predictable as the mouse still provides the same function of moving and selecting images/icons or, in the current instance, Jain’s frame 59, within a display or a plurality of displays such as Jain’s displays 55 and 56.
Claims 4-5, 16-17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US 20180113663 A1), as applied to claims 2, 14, and 22 above, and further in view of Rabii et al. (US 20190075611 A1).
Regarding claim 4, 16, and 24, Jain and Chen are not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Rabii teaches wherein before sending first sending data to the plurality of host devices, the method further comprises:
allocating a first air interface slot to a first host device that is first to establish a connection to the input device ([0007, 0035-0036, 0051], “the Bluetooth slave device SVDU 110 alternates during non-overlapping time slots between at least: 1) monitoring the first connection for traffic transmitted by the Bluetooth master WPCU device 206 while not monitoring the second and third connections”); and
allocating, based on the first air interface slot, air interface slots to the host devices other than the first host device ([0007, 0035-0036, 0051], “the Bluetooth slave SVDU 110 alternates during non-overlapping time slots between at least: 2) monitoring the second connection for traffic transmitted by the Bluetooth master wireless headphones 202 while not monitoring the first and third connections”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jain and Chen with Rabii such that the slave device, such as Jain’s mouse M, allocates Bluetooth time slots to different master devices as Rabii teaches a method which allows a slave device with a single Bluetooth transceiver to establish and maintain communication with a plurality of master Bluetooth devices without the additional cost or requirement for the slave device to include a plurality of Bluetooth transceivers (Rabii, [0004, 0006-0007]).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Jain and Chen are not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Rabii teaches wherein sending the first sending data to the plurality of host devices comprises:
sending, based on an air interface slot allocated by a first host device that is first to establish a connection to the input device, first data to the first host device (See Fig. 3A, steps 300 and 302, and Fig. 3B, steps 312 and 318. Also see [0007, 0035-0036, 0051], “the Bluetooth slave device SVDU 110 alternates during non-overlapping time slots between at least: 1) monitoring the first connection for traffic transmitted by the Bluetooth master WPCU device 206 while not monitoring the second and third connections”); and
sending second data to the host devices other than the first host device based on air interface slots allocated to the host devices other than the first host device ((See Fig. 3A, steps 304 and 306, and Fig. 3B, steps 314 and 320. Also see [0007, 0035-0036, 0051], “the Bluetooth slave SVDU 110 alternates during non-overlapping time slots between at least: 2) monitoring the second connection for traffic transmitted by the Bluetooth master wireless headphones 202 while not monitoring the first and third connections”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jain and Chen with Rabii such that the slave device, such as Jain’s mouse M, allocates Bluetooth time slots to different master devices as Rabii teaches a method which allows a slave device with a single Bluetooth transceiver to establish and maintain communication with a plurality of master Bluetooth devices without the additional cost or requirement for the slave device to include a plurality of Bluetooth transceivers (Rabii, [0004, 0006-0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220350425 A1, Lee et al. is related to the limitations of claim 4 showing an input device such as a mouse can be allocated a specific time slot within a frame of wireless communication.
US 20230376131 A1, Zeung et al. [0062-0066] is related to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10 AM - 6 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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at (571) 272-2963. 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.
/NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights