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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 23 and 27 are amended. Claims 10, 13, 18 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19 and 21-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the combination of Klein, Tamaru and Sakai fails to teach an electronic device comprising at least programmable circuit to, upon detection of a movement of the application window from the second portion of the display to the first spatial location at a second time, cause execution of a rendering model associated with the display exclusive zone to determine whether the second content is to be rendered as exclusive content, the rendering model trained based on at least one of user usage data, crowdsourced data, or display rules associated with prior display layouts (p. 11 of Remarks).
Applicant discloses “In some examples, a user may move content that is outside of a display exclusive zone 200 into the display exclusive zone 200, thereby converting the content into display exclusive content. In some examples, content that is not display exclusive content but will render in such a manner as to obstruct the display exclusive zone 200 while the display exclusive zone is occupied may be re-sized and/or moved” in [0046]. Here, applicant discloses a content can be moved from outside of a display exclusive zone 200 into the display exclusive zone 200, thereby converting the content into display exclusive content.
Examiner notices that Sakai discloses “FIG. 15 shows a state in which the object optimal processing unit 720 performs processing for automatically rotating an operation target object #1 in a direction in which the object faces the user A at a moment at which the object in the common area is dragged or thrown toward the user occupying area A for the user A and a part or a center coordinate of the object enters to the user occupying area A” in C16L48-54, see also Fig 15 below. Here, Sakai teaches moving a content from a second portion of the display (i.e. common area) to a display exclusive zone (i.e. user occupying area A) to determine to render the content as exclusive content (i.e. automatically rotating the content in a specific direction), which can be interpreted as the rendering model trained based on a display rule associated with prior display layouts.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KLEIN et al. (US 2021/0096887) in view of Tamaru et al. (US 2022/0237828 A1 from case 360) and Sakai (US 10,198,099 A1).
As to Claim 1, KLEIN teaches An electronic device comprising: machine-readable instructions and at least one programmable circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to (KLEIN, [0004] and Fig 14):
designate a first portion of a display screen as a display exclusive zone, the display exclusive zone having a first spatial location defining a boundary of the display exclusive zone relative to the display, the first spatial location defined by a first size within the display, exclusive content to remain unobstructed while rendered in the display exclusive zone; cause first content to be rendered in the display exclusive zone based on a determination that the first content is designated as the exclusive content (KLEIN discloses “Turning now to FIG. 8B, illustrated is a default location 805 of application window 806-i.e. the location where application window 806 would be displayed if the location was not altered due to being associated with a workflow. As depicted, default location 805 overlaps application window 704. However, in response to receiving touch 803 of icon 802, and after determining that application window 806 and application window 704 are associated with a workflow, foldable device 102 may display application window 806 in non-default display region 106E, thereby avoiding overlap with an application window that is part of the same workload, improving user interactivity. Foldable device 102 may display application window 806 in non-default display region 106E even if application window 806 occludes some or all of existing user interface 814, as the benefit to the user of laying out application windows associated with a workflow in a non-overlapping manner may outweigh the benefit of avoiding occlusion of existing user interface 814” in [0139]. Here, the region of the application window 704 refers to a display exclusive zone, while the second spatial location (location 805 in Fig 8B) of a second content (application window 806 in Fig 8C) overlaps with the first spatial location (location 106D), then the second content is relocated to location 106E (a third spatial location); see also Fig 8B & 8C below:
PNG
media_image2.png
594
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
594
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Here, KLEIN teaches a well-known non-overlapping layout. application window. Tamaru may provide another example of non-overlapping layout. Tamaru discloses “the processor being configured to perform first extraction processing to extract a region in which an object is displayed on a display screen on which an image is displayed, perform second extraction processing to extract a plurality of display candidate regions that are candidates for a region in which synthesized information to be synthesized with the image is displayed from regions other than the region extracted by the first extraction processing on the display screen, perform selection processing to select an optimum one of the regions extracted by the second extraction processing as a region in which the synthesized information is displayed on the display screen, and perform display processing to display the synthesized information in the region selected by the selection on the display screen” in Abstract; “In the present embodiment, in order to extract appropriate regions as candidates for the display destination of actual synthesized information, regions that satisfy at least one of various conditions such as a condition that the regions have an area of a certain level or more, a condition that the regions are not sandwiched between objects, and a condition that the regions are in contact with any edge on a screen may be extracted as synthesized information display candidate regions. Further, when a plurality of synthesized information display candidate regions that satisfy the above conditions are partially overlapped with each other on the screen, only a region having a greater area among the regions may be extracted as a synthesized information display candidate region” in [0046]; see also Fig 4-12. Here, the first extracted region refers to a display exclusive zone.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of KLEIN with the teaching of Tamaru so as to improve the visibility of objects within one display (Tamaru, [0085]).
The combination of Sakai further teaches following limitations:
determine second content rendered in an application window on a second portion of the display is non-exclusive content at a first time; upon detection of a movement of the application window from the second portion of the display to the first spatial location at a second time cause execution of a rendering model associated with the display exclusive zone to determine whether the second content is to be rendered as exclusive content the rendering model trained based on at least one of user usage data crowdsourced data or display rules associated with prior display layouts; and convert the nonexclusive content to exclusive content based on a result of the execution of the rendering model (Klein discloses “a user will move, resize, or switch between application windows associated with the workflow… The user-friendly layout may also enable a user to view more content at the same time, increasing productivity, reducing eye strain, facilitating operations such as "drag and drop" and "cut and paste", etc.” in [0005]. Sakai further discloses “FIG. 15 shows a state in which the object optimal processing unit 720 performs processing for automatically rotating an operation target object #1 in a direction in which the object faces the user A at a moment at which the object in the common area is dragged or thrown toward the user occupying area A for the user A and a part or a center coordinate of the object enters to the user occupying area A” in C16L48-54.
PNG
media_image3.png
638
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of KLEIN and Tamaru with the teaching of Sakai so as to allow the users to exchange operation target objects to individually perform operation on the operation target objects.
As to Claim 2, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first content or the second content is sourced by at least one of an application or an operating system (KLEIN discloses “However, in response to receiving touch 803 of icon 802, and after determining that application window 806 and application window 704 are associated with a workflow, foldable device 102 may display application window 806 in non-default display region 106E, thereby avoiding overlap with an application window that is part of the same workload, improving user interactivity” in [0139]; see also [0009, 0012].)
As to Claim 3, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to
cause third content to be rendered in the display exclusive zone based on a determination that (a) the display exclusive zone is unoccupied and (b) the third content corresponds to an application source (KLEIN discloses “Technologies are disclosed herein for positioning application windows based on a layout of existing application windows and an anticipated user workflow” in [0004], see also existing application window 704 in Fig 8B. Here, the third content is displayed in the display exclusive zone (location 106D) as shown in Fig 8A. Tamaru, Fig 4-12.)
As to Claim 4, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 3, wherein rendering the first content in the display exclusive zone causes the one or more of the at least one programmable circuit to:
access a mode of the display exclusive zone; and render the first content according to the mode of the display exclusive zone (KLEIN discloses “For example, since application windows are by default located in the display region of the UI component used to launch them…” in [0092]; “Determining a Default Display Region for an Application Window 806” in [0100]. Tamaru, Fig 4-12.)
As to Claim 5, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to cause a third portion of the display to render third content on the display outside the boundary of the display exclusive zone (KLEIN discloses the second content is rendered outside of the display exclusive zone (location 106D as shown in Fig 8). Tamaru, Fig 4-12. Sakai, Fig 15.)
As to Claim 6, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 5, wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to cause adjustment of the third portion of the display to render the third content based on a rendering model defined for the third content (KLEIN discloses “FIG. 7 is a device user interface diagram illustrating aspects of the operation of a window of an application that spans one region of a foldable device and a taskbar that is displayed using a 'proud' rendering mode and that appears unprompted in an empty display region, according to one embodiment” in [0022]; “In one embodiment, a bendable device 202 is configured to dynamically transition between interaction modes that are optimized for single and multiple display regions 106” in [0056]; see also “selecting a rendering mode for a UI component based on content occlusion” in [0062-0079]. Tamaru, Fig 4-12. Sakai, Fig 15.)
As to Claim 7, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to generate the rendering model for the first content and the second content based on a determination that the rendering model does not exist for a display layout associated with the first content and the second content (KLEIN discloses determine if it is single display region mode or a multiple display region mode in [0056-0057]; “There are a number of ways in which two or more application windows may be determined to be associated with a workflow” in [0009]; “Another technique identifies application windows that are associated with a workflow based on real-time information contained in the application windows-i.e. the application state used to determine that application windows are associated with a workflow is found in same instances of the application windows that may be displayed in a non-default location” in [0012]. Tamaru, Fig 4-12.)
As to Claim 8, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 7, wherein to generate the rendering model for the first content and the second content one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to:
generate the display layout of the first content and the second content based on at least one of user usage data, crowdsourced data, or display rules (KLEIN discloses “A score may be calculated based on historical usage data of the UI component” in [0065]; “This task context information may be used to display a UI component in a particular rendering mode. For example, if the current task context and historical usage data indicate that a recently launched web browser may be used to view a full-screen video, any UI components that do overlap with or are expected to overlap with the recently launched application window may be set to a shy rendering mode” in [0097]; “When multiple workflows have their criteria met, workflow selection rules may be applied to select a particular workflow to use when responding to activation 803” in [0133]; “A criteria based on application windows using the same resource is one example of a workflow criteria that is based on runtime behavior of application windows. Runtime behavior of an application window refers to the state, actions, location, size, content, and other attributes of an application window as a user is operating foldable device 102. Other runtime behaviors that may also be part of a workflow criteria include whether or not application windows overlap one another, a number of copy and paste commands between application windows, and a number of context-switches between application windows” in [0174]; see also Fig 8-9. See also Tamaru, Fig 4-12.)
Claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a method form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
Claim 11 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 8.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a computer readable medium form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
Claim 19 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 3.
Claim 21 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 5.
Claim 22 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 6.
Claim 23 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 7.
Claim 24 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 8.
As to Claim 25, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to prevent third content to be rendered in the display from overlapping the first content rendered in the display based on a determination that the first content is designated as the exclusive content (Tamaru, Fig 4-12.)
As to Claim 26, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to reconfigure the display exclusive zone to have a second spatial location different than the first spatial location, the second spatial location having a second size within the display at a second time (Tamaru, Fig 9-11.)
As to Claim 27, KLEIN in view of Tamaru and Sakai teaches The electronic device of claim 26, wherein the second content is a first type of content, one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to: based on a determination that third content is a second type of content, render the third content in the second spatial location, the third content rendered such that a portion of the third content that encroaches the boundary of the display exclusive zone rendered behind the first content (Tamaru, [0046] and Fig 4-12. Here, the type of content can be text or image in Fig 4.)
Claim 28 is rejected based upon similar rationale as Claim 25.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIMING HE whose telephone number is (571)270-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached on 571-272-7773. 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.
/Weiming He/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights