FINAL ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Amendment filed on 11/7/2025.
Application filed on 8/13/2021 with effective filing date of 3/19/2021 based on Foreign Priority application JP2021-046365.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1, 7-10, 15-18 are pending.
Claims 1, and 10 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 1, 10, 16-18 are amended.
Claims 2-6, 11-14 are previously cancelled.
The objections to claims 16-18 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 2/3/2025.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 1, 10, 16-18, in the amendment filed on 11/7/2025.
The previous objections to claims 16-18 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 11/7/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/7/2025/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A part of the arguments directed to newly amended language of claim 10 and its dependent claims are addressed with a new ground of rejection set forth below.
The applicant argued on pages 7-10 for independent claim 1 that the cited arts, specifically Ording, do not teach “in response to the user selecting another image displayed on the display unit, and different from the selected image, and moving the another image located in a location deviated from the display location of the large image to a display location of the large image to overlap with the large image, temporarily hiding at least a part of the large image displayed on the display unit”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Ording ([0067], Fig. 20b-20c) indeed teach to reveal the desktop which is occluded by the open windows while the user is dragging an object, the user can press a key or combination of keys to reveal desktop occluded by the open windows, the claim does not specifically exclude other user actions from happening when the dragging of the object to overlap with an opened window (large image). Accordingly Ording still teach the limitation recited above, and Hirose in view of Ording together teach the claimed features of claim 1. The examiner suggest to further narrow the scope of the claim to specifically exclude other user actions between dragging of the object and the hiding of the large image.
The applicant additionally argues for all dependent claims of claim 1 that they are allowable for the same reason argued for their independent claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees and counter asserts the same rationale set forth above.
The applicant’s arguments for claim 10, 15-18 are addressed with the new ground of the rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections to claims 16-18 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Hirose (US Pat 5745112, from IDS, hereinafter Hirose), in view of Ording et al. (US Pub 20070022389, hereinafter Ording).
Per claim 1, Hirose teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute: (Fig. 1-2 shows a computer with HDD 210);
a function of, in response to a user selecting an image displayed on a display unit, displaying a large image larger than the selected image, which is the image selected by the user, on the display unit; and (col 1 line 35-50, Fig. 3-4: the clock window 305 shown in Fig. 3 can be iconized to an icon 308 in Fig. 4, it’s obvious that the user can select the clock icon 308 to display the clock window 305, where the window 305 is an image larger than the icon image 308);
a function of, in response to the user selecting another image displayed on the display unit and different from the selected image, (col 4 line 19-36: Fig. 6-7 shows when the user selects and another image A.TXT) and moving the another image located in a location deviated from the display location of the large image to a display location of the large image (col 4 line 19-36: Fig. 6-7 shows when the user dragged and moved another image A.TXT, whose original position deviated from the clock icon position, toward the clock window 305 as shown by the position of the dotted line 311) (col 4 line 19-36: Fig. 6-7 shows after the user moves the another image A.TXT 311, the displayed clock window 305 is hidden to reveal the shredder icon 306; also see Fig. 8-9 col 5 line 15-56: Fig. 8-9 shows flowcharts of a method that in response to user initiation of a drag operation on a source icon, all other windows other than the one containing the source icon is checked to determine whether or not the source icon can be processed in the window, and the window that cannot accept the source icon is “hidden” from the display screen) such that a (Fig. 8-9 col 5 line 15-56: Fig. 8-9 shows flowcharts of a method that in response to user initiation of a drag operation on a source icon, all other windows other than the one containing the source icon is checked to determine whether or not the source icon can be processed in the window, and the window that cannot accept the source icon is “hidden” from the display screen; col 4 line 19-36: Fig. 6-7 illustrate the clock window 305 is hidden so that the “shredder” icon is visible to the user).
Although Hirose teaches moving an object toward another window to automatically close/hide the window to reveal an image/icon that the object can be dropped onto, such as a shredder icon that’s behind the window (Fig. 6-7), Hirose does not explicitly teach when an object overlaps with an image/window, the image/window is then partly hidden: “…the another image … to a display location of the large image to overlap with the large image, temporarily hiding at least a part of the large image displayed on the display unit …”, and Hirose also does not explicitly teach a “storage image” being present/displayed on the desktop to accept the dragged icon.
However, Ording teaches:
… the another image… to a display location of the large image to overlap with the large image, temporarily hiding at least a part of the large image displayed on the display unit … ([0067] Fig. 20a-20d: a user selection object 110b which overlaps with the windows J and other windows such as window G during a drag operation, user can initiate “Show Desktop” mode to hide all windows including the overlapping window such as J and G to continue its drag operation to its final destination).
… such that a storage image, which is an image used for storing information in a specific storage area, [being present behind the large image displayed on the display unit is visible to the user] ([0067] Fig. 20c shows user can drag the object 100b to a disk drive icon 100c, which was previously obscured by the windows).
Ording and Hirose are analogous art because Ording teaches methods of changing states of the displayed windows in response to a drag operation on an object in order to perform a function when dropping the object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Hirose and Ording before him/her, to modify the teachings of Hirose to include the teachings of Ording so that the window that overlaps with dragged object can be hidden to reveal hidden storage icon as drag-and-drop destination. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve usability by enabling users to hide all overlapping window to review the desktop which includes storage icons that were not fully visible to the user to help user to make selection of drop destination in a single drag and drop operation, and automatically restoring the window afterward and reduce steps/efforts needed by the user.
Per claim 7, Hirose-Ording teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Hirose further teaches:
a function of, after the user moves the another image, returning a state of the large image that is in a state after the display is changed, to a state before the display is changed. (col 4 line 20-36: after the user drag and drop the A.txt icon to the shredder icon to delete the file, the clock window is restored to its original state as Fig. 6).
Per claim 8, Hirose-Ording teach all the limitations of claim 7, and Hirose further teaches:
a function of displaying a hidden part of the large image of which at least a part has been hidden, after the user moves the another image. (col 4 line 20-36: after the user drag and drop the A.txt icon to the shredder icon to delete the file, the clock window is restored to its original state as Fig. 6).
Per claim 9, Hirose-Ording teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Hirose further teaches:
a function of, in a state where the user selects the another image by using an apparatus used for selecting the another image, in response to the user operating a part-to-be-operated provided on the apparatus or another apparatus, changing the display of the large image. (col 3 line 60 – col 4 line 18: user can select the A.TXT icon by a mouse, where the user operates the mouse by pressing a mouse button to drag the icon, the clock window is hidden).
Claim(s) 10, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub 20130198692, hereinafter Lin), in view of Weber et al. (US Pub 20160239189, hereinafter Weber).
Per claim 10, Lin teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute: ([0050] computer system Fig. 8 shows RAM 803, storage device 806)
a function of, in response to a user selects an image displayed on a display unit, displaying an image larger than the selected image, which is the image selected by the user, on the display unit; and ([0010-0011] Fig. 1B shows a tabbed interface for opened documents, where in response to user selecting a tab 123 (image) “Doc 3”, displaying corresponding document 125 (large image));
a function of, in response to the user selecting a selection item of a comparison mode, temporarily hiding at least a part of the large image displayed on the display unit ([0003] when user is working in multiple documents concurrently, such as comparing two or more documents, the user may desire multiple documents concurrently being presented on the display; [0045] Fig. 7A-7B show an exemplary user interface where the various windows elements are not immediately accessible, and are made present with a menu selection of “Window” (a selection item of a comparison mode) with a list of windows 702-705, where the “Window” popup menu partly hide a part of the main window display);
a function of, in response to the user selecting the back image, ([0029, 0045] Fig. 2 shows when user control select multiple tabs, such as “Doc 3” 203 (image) and “Doc 2” 202 (back image), “Doc 2” is shown as behind “Doc 3” tab in Fig. 1B; user can also make selection of back window with “Window” menu shown in Fig. 7A) changing display of the large image by performing at least one among redisplay, changing a display position, changing to enlarge a size, or changing to increase a display density on the large image, and ([0029-0030] Fig. 2 shows the image of “Doc 3” is changed (position, size) to concurrently display both “Doc 3” and “Doc 2”);
displaying a corresponding image, that is larger than the back image and corresponds to the back image, and the changed large image side by side on the display unit. ([0029-0030] Fig. 2 shows “Doc 2” is display in window 205 (corresponding image of back image/tab 202) which is larger than the tab 202 “Doc 2”, and is displayed side by side with “Doc 3” window 206).
Although Lin teaches selection of a Window menu (compare mode) enable user to select different opened window tabs to compare them (Fig. 7A-7B [0045]) in different layout (Fig. 2, Fig. 6, Fig. 7A) ; Lin does not explicitly teach display what’s behind the large image to be selected when a part of the large image/window is temporarily hidden: “[in response to …], temporarily hiding at least a part of the large image displayed on the display unit such that a back image, which is displayed behind the large image displayed on the display unit, is visible to the user”.
However, Weber teaches:
[in response to …], temporarily hiding at least a part of the large image displayed on the display unit such that a back image, which is displayed behind the large image displayed on the display unit, is visible to the user ([0029-0030] Fig. 4A-4C: multiple browser tabs can be requested to be presented in a stacked fashion, where the main browser tabs is temporarily hidden by concurrently presentation of multiple tabs stacked vertically (back image), which are made visible to the user).
Weber and Lin are analogous art because Weber also teaches methods of displaying multiple browser tabs concurrently for selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Lin and Weber before him/her, to modify the teachings of Lin to include the teachings of Weber so that multiple browser tabs can be presented in stacked fashion, browsed with vertical swipe and multiple selected for comparisons. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide additional alternatives for presenting a list of window tabs such as stacked browser windows, which provide further customization of interface, and enhancing usability for the users.
Per claim 15, Lin-Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and Lin further teaches:
a function of, in response to the user performing an operation on the back image, and the user performing an operation of further changing the display of the large image, after the display of the large image is changed once, changing the display of the large image. ([0032] Fig. 2: interview 200 enable break-away capability of the tabs 201-204, when user break away tab 202 “Doc 2” (operation on the back image), and break away tab 203 “Doc 3” (operation of further changing the large image “Doc3), the displayed side by side documents of Doc 2 and Doc 3 would be changed for Doc 3 as a floating window).
Per claim 16, Lin-Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and Lin further teaches:
a function of hiding at least a part of the large image displayed on the display unit, in response to the user performing a predetermined operation on an another image; ([0010-0011, 0029-0030] user selection of another tab such “Doc 1” (predetermined operation on another image), the Doc 3 (large image) would be hidden);
a function of displaying at least a part of the large image that has been hidden, after the user performs the predetermined operation on the another image; and ([0029-0030] after user select the Doc 3 tab again following the selection of Doc 1 tab (predetermined operation), the previously hidden Doc 3 tab is displayed again);
a function of performing a change of hiding at least a part of the large image, in response to the user performing an operation on the back image, and the user performing an operation of displaying the hidden part again after the at least a part of the large image has been hidden. ([0010-0011, 0029-0030] user selection of Doc 2 tab (operation on the back image) would hide the Doc 3 (large image) content window, and the user selection of Doc 3 tab will redisplay of the previously hidden Doc 3 window).
Per claim 17, Lin-Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and Lin further teaches:
a function of performing a process of displaying the at least a part of the large image that has been hidden, after the user performs an operation on the back image. ([0029-0030, 0032] after the user select the Doc 2 tab (operation on the back image), the Doc 3 (large image) would be hidden, and can be redisplayed after the user select Doc 3 again).
Per claim 18, Lin-Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and Lin further teaches:
a function of, in response to the user performing an operation on the back image and the user performing an operation of inputting information indicating that the back image and the large image are compared, changing the display of the large image. ([0029-0030, 0032] after the user break away the tab for Doc 2 (back image) and the user multi-select the tabs for Doc 2 and Doc 3 again (operation of indicating the back image and large image are compared), the display of the Doc 3 will be changed again from standalone tab to side by side tab as shown in Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Application Publications & US Patents
US 20030076362 A1
Terada, Masahiro
The object of the present invention is to make it possible to drop easily an object in a window as a destination of drop by an operator even if the window as the destination of drop is concealed on the desktop before start of the drag. When an object 22 displayed in a window 21 is dragged by a pointing device and then dropped in another window 23, start of a drag operation is detected, and the window 23 that corresponds to an application as a destination of drop of the dragged object 22 is displayed on a foremost side of a multi-window environment to activate.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights