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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 22, 2025 has been entered.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Response to Amendment
This Final Office action is responsive to the request for continued examination filed on August 22, 2025 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 20, 25, and 26 re now amended.
Claims 5, 7, and 8 are now cancelled.
New claims 29 and 30, which are renumbered versions of claims 7 and 8, are now added.
Claims 1–4 and 9–30 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
I. Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Claims 1, 2, and 4–25 continue to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) by their use of the phrase “display generation component.” The Applicant contends that it does not, but the Applicant’s response is not persuasive for the following reasons.
The Applicant’s first argument that display generation component does not use the word “means” or step” is not persuasive, because the Examiner’s finding of invocation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is based on that term being used as a generic placeholder, rather than one of the presumed words.
The Applicant’s second argument that the term is not modified by functional language, such as “for,” “configured to,” or “so that” (Response 12) is also unpersuasive. Respectfully, the Applicant is confusing the concept of functional language with linking words. Linking words—such as “for,” “configured to,” or “so that”—are not functional language. Linking words are merely phrases that link the nonce word to the function under prong b of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) analysis. As the MPEP explains, it is “not necessary to use a linking word if other words used with . . . the generic placeholder, convey the function.” MPEP § 2181 (subsection (I.)(B.)). In this case, the nonce word is “component,” and the modifying function is “display generation,” leaving us with a nonce word that is modified by a function.
The Applicant’s third argument, that a person of skill in the art of display generation would clearly understand what the structure is referenced by “display generation component” (Response 13) is also unpersuasive, because it is not responsive to the three-prong analysis.
By law, the word “component” is considered to be a non-structural generic placeholder in the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) unless the Applicant provides an overriding definition in the specification. See MPEP § 2181 (subsection (I.)(A.)). In this case, the Applicant pairs the generic placeholder with the verbal phrase “display generation,” and the specification does not provide an overriding definition of “component.” Therefore, on its face, the phrase “display generation component” describes a non-structural generic “component” that provides the action of generating a display.
Furthermore, claim 3 provides additional evidence that the “display generation component” recited in ancestor claim 1 is a non-structural generic placeholder, because claim 3 actually recites a structure for the display generation component as including “a display screen.” Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, the presence of structure in dependent claim 3 gives “gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In other words, because claim 3 recites the structure, there is a presumption that ancestor claim 1 fails to include that structure.
Additionally, the Written Description provides even further evidence that the “display generation component” of claims 1, 2, and 4–25 is meant to be a non-structural generic placeholder. Throughout the Written Description, the Applicant repeatedly gives a list of examples of “a display generation component” of devices that have very different structures, such as “a display, a projector, a heads-up display, etc.” (Spec. ¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 253, 281, 295, 315). The only thing that these three examples have in common is the function that they perform. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the claims together with the specification, therefore, would take this list of examples to mean that the Applicant intends for “display generation component” to describe any possible “component” that performs the function of display generation, regardless of its structure.
Accordingly, since the Applicant has not provided any evidence to weigh against the above evidence (nor is there any), the Examiner continues to interpret “display generation component” as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
II. Objections
All previous objections to the claims are hereby withdrawn, responsive to the amendment correcting the informalities raised in the previous Office Action. The amendment introduces a few new informalities, and therefore, new grounds of objection are raised herein.
III. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is hereby withdrawn, responsive to the Applicant rewriting the claims in the proper order.
IV. Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1–5, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0203596 A1 (“Dhaliwal”). The Applicant’s remarks have been considered in light of the amendment, but do not persuade the Examiner to withdraw the rejection for the following reasons.
The Applicant contends that Dhaliwal does not describe displaying the application window 20 in a full screen mode, (Response 15) but in fact, Dhaliwal does disclose this in FIG. 11, and this disclosure was previously applied in the rejection of claim 3.
The Applicant also contends that Dhaliwal does not describe concurrently displaying views of first and second applications, (Response 15), but Dhaliwal’s figures clearly show that the application window 20 is to be displayed side-by-side with the desktop/wallpaper. “The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art,” MPEP § 2125, and in this case, the drawings (e.g. at least FIGS. 2–5) illustrate, independent from window 20, a desktop with a recycling/trash bin and file icons.
The Applicant further contends that Yook does not remedy the alleged deficiencies of Dhaliwal with respect to claim 1 (see Response 17), but Dhaliwal anticipates claim 1 without any deficiencies for Yook to remedy. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim(s) 9–11, 20, and 27–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0248788 A1. The Applicant’s remarks on this rejection consist of Dhaliwal’s alleged deficiency for claim 1, but Dhaliwal is not deficient. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim(s) 9–11, 20, 21, 24, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0329550 A1 (“Dellinger”). The Applicant’s remarks on this rejection consist of Dhaliwal’s alleged deficiency for claim 1, but Dhaliwal is not deficient. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claims 12–14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal and Yook as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357439 A1 (“Lemay”). The Applicant’s remarks on this rejection consist of Dhaliwal’s alleged deficiency for claim 1, but Dhaliwal is not deficient. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claims 12, 13, and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal and Yook as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0252375 (“Chaudhri II”). The Applicant’s remarks on this rejection consist of Dhaliwal’s alleged deficiency for claim 1, but Dhaliwal is not deficient. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
V. Allowable Subject Matter
The Applicant is reminded that claim 22 recites allowable subject matter, and rewriting the independent claims to include the subject matter thereof would place the application into condition for allowance.
Claim Interpretation
I. Contingent Limitations in Method Claims
Unless or until the Applicant amends the claims to say otherwise, the Examiner will read every claimed method as requiring only a single iteration, with no repetitions, regardless of how many contingent steps are recited therein.
The narrower discussion in paragraph 335 is acknowledged. It says, in relevant part:
in methods described herein where one or more steps are contingent upon one or more conditions having been met, it should be understood that the described method can be repeated in multiple repetitions so that over the course of the repetitions all of the conditions upon which steps in the method are contingent have been met in different repetitions of the method . . . . Thus, a method described with one or more steps that are contingent upon one or more conditions having been met could be rewritten as a method that is repeated until each of the conditions described in the method has been met.
(Spec. ¶ 335).
However, as understood by the Examiner, the above passage merely serves to provide Written Description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) to amend the method claims if, at some future time, the Applicant wishes to add a repetition requirement to the claimed processes. The Examiner does not read the above passage as a lexicographical instruction to automatically read a repetition requirement into every process claim, due to the permissive language describing the repetitions as something that “can” or “could be” written into the claims (but currently is not explicitly recited).
II. Functional Limitations that Invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “display generation component” in claims 1, 2, and 4–25 (but not claims 3 or 26).
The “display generation component” recited in claim 3 does not invoke § 112(f) because claim 3 modifies the display generation component with the structure of a “display screen.”
The “display generation component” recited in claim 26 does not invoke § 112(f) because § 112(f) only applies to “[a]n element in a claim.” The display generation component (and its corresponding electronic device) is not an element of claim 26; it is merely part of a description of the intended use environment for the claimed computer readable storage medium. For example, a person may infringe claim 26 simply by selling a CD-ROM on which the instructions of claim 26 are stored.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to having the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 25, and 26
The present continuous tense of “displaying” (line 7 of claim 1, and corresponding lines of claims 25 and 26) is incorrect. It should either be changed to “includes a display[[ing]] of” or “[[includes displaying]] displays”.
Alternatively, if the Applicant intends to keep the full screen display mode embodiment, the Applicant should consider simply removing the term “first display mode,” since claims 1, 25, and 26 effectively select the full screen display mode as the first display mode at the outset. (For example: “… a first view of a first application in a [[first]] full screen display mode that includes [[displaying]] respective content
Claim 9
Claim 9 includes two informalities that result from amending claim 1 without amending corresponding portions of claim 9.
(1) Claim 9 lacks antecedent basis for “the view of the first application in the second display mode” (first two lines of the claim) because claim 1 was amended to rename this “a second view of the first application in the second display mode.”
(2) Claim 9 continues to use the indefinite article “a” together with the first view of the second application and the second view of the first application, but the amendment to claim 1 now introduces those terms prior to claim 9. Accordingly, the indefinite article “a” in claim 9 should be changed to the definite article “the” to re-invoke the first and second views that were introduced in the parent claim.
Claim 22
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1–5, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0203596 A1.
Claim 1
Dhaliwal discloses:
A method for displaying multiple views of one or more applications, comprising: at an electronic device including a display generation component and one or more input devices:
As shown in FIG. 1, at a processor 14 of a computing device 10, numbered components 20–30 perform a process as described below. See Dhaliwal ¶ 18; see also Dhaliwal ¶ 33 (describing the same process in flowchart form). The computing device 10 performing the process includes a “touch sensitive display 16,” which, by its name, comprises both a display, and a mechanism for inputting touch inputs. See Dhaliwal ¶ 18; see also Dhaliwal ¶¶ 52–53.
concurrently displaying, via the display generation component: a first view of a first application
“[W]indow repositioning module 18 . . . is executed by the processor 14 in communication with the touch sensitive display 16 having an open application window 20.” Dhaliwal ¶ 18.
in a first display mode that includes displaying respective content of the first application in a full screen display mode,
Window repositioning module 18 may instruct the touch sensitive display 16 to display the open application window 20 in a “full screen mode.” See, e.g., Dhaliwal ¶¶ 30 and 32 (referring to FIG. 11).
and a display mode affordance;
As shown in the right half of FIG. 11, processor 14 renders the full screen version of application window 20 by maintaining display of the same title bar 36 along the top of the application window 20 that processor 14 renders for every other display mode—it is part application window 20 itself. See Dhaliwal FIGS. 3 and 10 and ¶ 25 (explicitly disclosing “36” as the reference numeral); see also Dhaliwal FIGS. 2, 4, 9, and 11 (depicting the title bar for every other display mode disclosed in the reference).
As will be discussed in greater detail below, title bar 36 affords a predetermined region with which to receive an “invocation gesture 22” configured to invoke a menu 24 (or 34) of display mode options. Additionally, for those who read “display mode affordance” more narrowly, some embodiments further include an explicit “selector 44” for receiving the invocation gesture 22. Dhaliwal ¶ 31. That said, the Examiner submits that “display mode affordance” is broad enough to include title bar 36 alone.
while displaying the first view of the first application, receiving a sequence of one or more inputs including a first input selecting the display mode affordance;
Processor 14 is configured to recognize a sequence of inputs that includes “an invocation gesture 22 in a first touch input,” followed by “a preview gesture 26 in a second touch input.” Dhaliwal ¶ 19. As shown throughout the figures, “the invocation gesture 22 may be a touch input in a title bar 36 of an application window 20.” Dhaliwal ¶ 25.
Accordingly, the claimed sequence corresponds to Dhaliwal’s sequence of a first touch input and second touch input, with the claimed first input of the sequence corresponding to Dhaliwal’s first touch input.
in response to receiving the first input, displaying, via the display generation component, a selection panel comprising a plurality of display mode options;
The processor 14 will “present a window repositioning preview interface 24 for the application window 20 in response to the invocation gesture 22.” Dhaliwal ¶ 19; see also Dhaliwal ¶ 25.
and in response to detecting the sequence of one or more inputs selecting one of a plurality of display mode options: in accordance with a determination that a first display mode option of the plurality of display mode options was selected, displaying a second view of the first application in a second display mode that is different from the first display mode
“The processor 14 is further configured to detect a preview gesture 26 in a second touch input. In response to the preview gesture 26, a graphical preview 28 of at least one repositioning location is displayed in the window repositioning preview interface 24. The processor 14 receives a selection 30 of the window repositioning location based on user input and, in response to the selection 30, subsequently dismisses the window repositioning preview interface 24 and repositions the application window 20 to the selected window repositioning location.” Dhaliwal ¶ 19.
“In any of the above-described embodiments of the window repositioning preview interface 24 that is invoked during a window repositioning operation 100, the window repositioning location may be selected from the group comprising right side, left side, upper right quadrant, lower right quadrant, upper left quadrant, lower left quadrant, maximize, minimize, and full screen.” Dhaliwal ¶ 30. Note that the first display mode option is mapped to any single one of the right side, left side, upper right quadrant, lower right quadrant, upper left quadrant, or lower left quadrant options in the aforementioned group.
and concurrently displaying a first view of a second application that is distinct from the first application;
Having resized the application window 20, a view of the underlying desktop (e.g., the desktop wallpaper) is now displayed on the screen. For example, if the user selects the option 28 to have the application window 20 occupy “the left half of the desktop of the touch sensitive display 16,” Dhaliwal ¶ 23, then the right half of the display provides different content from the content generated by application window 20, as shown in FIG. 3.
and in accordance with a determination that a second display mode option of the plurality of display mode options was selected, displaying a view of the first application in a third display mode that is different from the first display mode and different from the second display mode and concurrently displaying a second view of the second application that is different from the first view of the second application.
Having resized the application window 20, a view of the underlying desktop (e.g., the desktop wallpaper) is now displayed on the screen. For example, if the user selects the option to have the application window 20 occupy the right half of the desktop of the touch sensitive display 16, then the left half of the display provides different content from the content generated by application window 20, as shown in FIG. 2.
Claim 2
Dhaliwal discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of display mode options includes a display mode option corresponding to a full screen display mode.
“In any of the above-described embodiments of the window repositioning preview interface 24 that is invoked during a window repositioning operation 100, the window repositioning location may be selected from the group comprising . . . maximize, minimize, and full screen.” Dhaliwal ¶ 30.
Claim 3
Dhaliwal discloses the method of claim 2,
wherein the display generation component includes a display screen,
The computing device 10 performing the process includes a “touch sensitive display 16,” which, by its name, comprises both a display, and a mechanism for inputting touch inputs. See Dhaliwal ¶ 18; see also Dhaliwal ¶¶ 52–53.
and wherein the first display mode is the full screen display mode where the first view of the first application occupies substantially an entire display area of the display screen.
“In any of the above-described embodiments of the window repositioning preview interface 24 that is invoked during a window repositioning operation 100, the window repositioning location may be selected from the group comprising . . . maximize, minimize, and full screen.” Dhaliwal ¶ 30. By disclosing both the maximize mode and the full screen mode, Dhaliwal’s disclosure falls within whatever scope is construed for the word “substantially,” since “a maximized mode is distinguished from a full screen mode in that the tool bar remains visible when an application window 20 is maximized, as depicted in FIG. 7.” Dhaliwal ¶ 27.
Claim 4
Dhaliwal discloses the method of claim 3,
wherein a respective display mode option of the plurality of display mode options that corresponds to a currently selected display mode is visually distinguished from one or more other display mode options in the plurality of display mode options.
In at least one embodiment (shown in FIG. 2), rather than simply display buttons for each mode, “the window repositioning preview interface 24 shows a reduced size image 32 of the application window 20,” and when the user selects one of the modes, “the reduced size image 32 of the application window position after selection is highlighted on the display.” Dhaliwal ¶ 20; see also Dhaliwal ¶ 37 (“the graphical preview may include at least one reduced size image of an application window position after selection, highlighted on the display”).
Claim 23
Dhaliwal discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of display mode options includes one or more of a split-screen view affordance, a full-screen view affordance, and an overlay view affordance.
“In any of the above-described embodiments of the window repositioning preview interface 24 that is invoked during a window repositioning operation 100, the window repositioning location may be selected from the group comprising right side, left side, upper right quadrant, lower right quadrant, upper left quadrant, lower left quadrant, maximize, minimize, and full screen.” Dhaliwal ¶ 30.
Claims 25 and 26
Claim 25 recites an electronic device with general purpose computer components that are arranged to perform the same computer-implemented method as recited in claim 1, as part of its normal operation. Dhaliwal discloses such a computer-implemented method for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches the same electronic device for implementing that method. See Dhaliwal ¶¶ 18 and 52–53.
Claim 26 is directed to a broader version of solely the memory component of claim 25, including all of its stored one or more program instructions. Claim 26 is therefore rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 25 (which include the findings from claim 1 incorporated by reference).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Dhaliwal and Yook teach claims 9–11, 20, and 27–29.
Claim(s) 9–11, 20, and 27–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0248788 A1 (“Yook”).
Claim 9
Dhaliwal teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the additional steps of selecting a second application from the home screen.
Yook, however, teaches both this and several other steps that claim 9 incorporates from claim 1 by reference, which are included below for context:
A method for displaying multiple views of one or more applications, comprising:
Reference is made to the sequence of screens 521–527 shown in FIG. 5C.
at an electronic device including a display generation component and one or more input devices:
The sequence shown in FIG. 5C is performed by a “mobile terminal 100,” which includes a display unit 141, and a touch panel 143. Yook ¶ 30.
concurrently displaying, via the display generation component: a first view of a first application in a first display mode that includes respective content of the first application
Referring to FIG. 5C, “the mobile terminal 100 can divide the screen of the display unit 141 into two divided screen areas, and output two functional view areas App.A and App.B related to the user functions on the divided screen areas as illustrated in screen 521.” Yook ¶ 65. To be clear, the claimed first view of a first application corresponds to Yook’s functional view area for App.B. The view of App.A is an additional unrecited element that falls within the open-ended scope of this claim. See MPEP § 2111.03.
while displaying the first view of the first application, receiving a sequence of one or more inputs
“Thereafter, the user can enter the ‘Home’ key provided on the mobile terminal 100.” Yook ¶ 66.
in response to detecting the sequence of one or more inputs: ceasing to display at least a portion of the first view of the first application that includes the respective content of the first application while displaying a representation of the first application;
“In response, the mobile terminal 100 can resize the functional view areas App.A and App.B into functional view areas `A` and `B` and place the functional view areas `A` and `B` at preset locations.” Yook ¶ 66.
and displaying, via the display generation component, at least a portion of a home screen that includes multiple application affordances,
In addition to replacing the App.A and App.B functional areas with minimized functional view areas `A` and `B`, the mobile terminal 100 “can output a menu view area corresponding to the ‘Home’ key on the display unit 141,” as illustrated in screen 523 of FIG. 5C. Yook ¶ 66.
while continuing to display the portion of the home screen and the representation of the first application, but without displaying the respective content of the first application, receiving a second input selecting an application affordance associated with a second application;
“In screen 523, the user can select a function icon `C` among at least one function icon in the menu view area and move the function icon `C` to the functional view area `A` through drag and drop,” Yook ¶ 66, followed by “an input signal for tapping a split area in screen 525.” Yook ¶ 67.
and in response to receiving the second input, concurrently displaying, via the display generation component: a second view of the first application that includes the respective content of the first application, and a first view of the second application, wherein the second view of the first application and the first view of the second application comprise (i) a side-by-side display of the second view of the first application and the first view of the second application, or (ii) one of the second view of the first application and the first view of the second application overlaid over the other.
“Thereafter, when the user generates an input signal for tapping a split area in screen 525, the mobile terminal 100 can remove the menu view area and resize the functional view area being output to fit in the corresponding split area of the display unit 141 as illustrated in screen 527. For example, the menu view area is hidden in screen 527; the functional view area `C` in screen 525 is resized into a functional view area App.C fitting in the corresponding split area in screen 527; and the functional view area `B` in screen 525 is resized into a functional view area App.B fitting in the corresponding split area in screen 527.” Yook ¶ 67.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Dhaliwal’s computing device in the same way that Yook’s technique improved Yook’s mobile terminal 100, i.e., by adding a mechanism for opening a second application for a side-by-side presentation. One would have been motivated to improve Dhaliwal with Yook’s technique based on an explicitly recognized “need for a method that enables a mobile terminal to effectively operate a large screen for user convenience.” Yook ¶ 5.
Claim 10
Dhaliwal and Yook teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the second view of the first application is (i) a smaller view of the first application, or (ii) a view of the first application that is the same size as the first view of the first application.
“In any of the above-described embodiments of the window repositioning preview interface 24 that is invoked during a window repositioning operation 100, the window repositioning location may be selected from the group comprising right side, left side, upper right quadrant, lower right quadrant, upper left quadrant, lower left quadrant, maximize, minimize, and full screen.” Dhaliwal ¶ 30. All of the foregoing except for maximize and full screen at least fall within the scope of alternative (i).
Claim 11
Dhaliwal and Yook teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the second view of the first application and the first view of the second application occupy substantially an entire display area.
“[W]hen the user generates an input signal for tapping a split area in screen 525, the mobile terminal 100 can remove the menu view area and resize the functional view area being output to fit in the corresponding split area of the display unit 141 as illustrated in screen 527. For example, the menu view area is hidden in screen 527; the functional view area `C` in screen 525 is resized into a functional view area App.C fitting in the corresponding split area in screen 527; and the functional view area `B` in screen 525 is resized into a functional view area App.B fitting in the corresponding split area in screen 527.” Yook ¶ 67.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Dhaliwal’s computing device in the same way that Yook’s technique improved Yook’s mobile terminal 100, i.e., by adding a mechanism for opening a second application for a side-by-side presentation. One would have been motivated to improve Dhaliwal with Yook’s technique based on an explicitly recognized “need for a method that enables a mobile terminal to effectively operate a large screen for user convenience.” Yook ¶ 5.
Claim 20
Dhaliwal and Yook teach the method of claim 9, further comprising:
concurrently displaying, via the display generation component: the second view of the first application, the first view of the second application,
The findings from the rejections of claims 1 and 9 are hereby incorporated by reference. As set forth in those findings, Dhaliwal at least teaches displaying the second view of the first application, and Yook teaches displaying both the first and second views of the two respective applications, concurrently. See Yook ¶ 67 (“the functional view area `C` in screen 525 is resized into a functional view area App.C fitting in the corresponding split area in screen 527; and the functional view area `B` in screen 525 is resized into a functional view area App.B fitting in the corresponding split area in screen 527”).
a second display mode affordance associated with the first view of the second application, and a third display mode affordance associated with the second view of the first application;
Dhaliwal further teaches, in general, that the windows 20 its device displays are to be given “a selector 44” as an entry point into the window repositioning preview interface 24. Dhaliwal ¶ 31. Dhaliwal was combined with Yook in the rejection of parent claim 9, and since Yook teaches a display of two concurrent windows, it follows that Dhaliwal teaches (or at least suggests) displaying a respective selector 44 for each displayed window, each one corresponding to a respective one of the claimed display mode affordances.
detecting a sequence of one or more inputs including a fourth input; and
Having combined the references, the combined systems are necessarily capable of receiving a sequence of four inputs, and no further modification is necessary for the combined systems to receive these four inputs. The four inputs are as follows:
(1) detect a preview gesture 26 on Dhaliwal’s selector 44 associated with Yook’s App.B view. See Dhaliwal ¶ 19.
(2) receive a selection 30 of a window repositioning location, Dhaliwal ¶ 19, and in particular, the “minimize” option. See Dhaliwal ¶ 30.
(3) detect a preview gesture 26 on Dhaliwal’s selector 44 associated with Yook’s App.C view. See Dhaliwal ¶ 19.
(4) receive a selection 30 of a window repositioning location, Dhaliwal ¶ 19, and in particular, the “minimize” option. Dhaliwal ¶ 30.
in response to detecting the sequence of one or more inputs including the fourth input that selects the second display mode affordance, ceasing to display the first view of the second application and displaying the first view of the first application, and ceasing to display the second view of the first application.
“When selection 30 of the window relocation position has been achieved by the user, the window repositioning preview interface 24 is dismissed, and the application window 20 is repositioned to the selected location.” Dhaliwal ¶ 21. The word “minimize” is a well known term in the art that refers to hiding a window and replacing it with an icon representation of window, typically in a dock or taskbar. See, e.g., PCMag.com, minimize, available at <https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/minimize> and Merriam-Webster, minimize (sense 3), available at <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minimize>.
Hence, by performing inputs (1) and (2) on one of the windows, and performing inputs (3) and (4) on the other, the resulting functionality is the same as is claimed.
Claim 27
Dhaliwal and Yook teach the method of claim 9,
wherein displaying the portion of the home screen that includes the multiple application affordances includes displaying the multiple application affordances in a respective portion of a display area, the respective portion being outside the representation of the first application,
In addition to replacing the App.A and App.B functional areas with minimized functional view areas `A` and `B`, the mobile terminal 100 “can output a menu view area corresponding to the ‘Home’ key on the display unit 141,” as illustrated in screen 523 of FIG. 5C. Yook ¶ 66.
and wherein the second view of the first application is displayed in a first subset of the respective portion of the display area, and the first view of the second application is displayed in a second subset of the respective portion of the display different from the first subset of the respective portion of the display area.
“Thereafter, when the user generates an input signal for tapping a split area in screen 525, the mobile terminal 100 can remove the menu view area and resize the functional view area being output to fit in the corresponding split area of the display unit 141 as illustrated in screen 527. For example, the menu view area is hidden in screen 527; the functional view area `C` in screen 525 is resized into a functional view area App.C fitting in the corresponding split area in screen 527; and the functional view area `B` in screen 525 is resized into a functional view area App.B fitting in the corresponding split area in screen 527.” Yook ¶ 67.
The result is that App.C is displayed on one half of the area where the grid of icons were displayed, while App.B is displayed on the other half of the area where the grid of icons were displayed.
Claim 28
Dhaliwal and Yook teach the method of claim 9,
wherein the portion of the home screen that includes the multiple application affordances comprises a grid arrangement of the multiple application affordances along one or more rows and one or more columns.
In addition to replacing the App.A and App.B functional areas with minimized functional view areas `A` and `B`, the mobile terminal 100 “can output a menu view area corresponding to the ‘Home’ key on the display unit 141,” as illustrated in screen 523 of FIG. 5C. Yook ¶ 66.
Claim 29
Dhaliwal and Yook teach the method of claim 9,
wherein the home screen includes multiple affordances including a first affordance for invoking the first application and a second affordance for invoking the second application that is different from the first application.
As shown in screens 523 and 525 of FIG. 5, while displaying the home screen, the mobile terminal displays several different icons, including icons that launch the application corresponding to function icon “C.” Yook ¶ 66.
II. Dhaliwal and Dellinger teach claims 9–11, 20, 21, 24, 28, and 30.
Claim(s) 9–11, 20, 21, 24, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhaliwal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0329550 A1 (“Dellinger”).
Claim 9
Dhaliwal teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the additional steps of selecting a second application from the home screen.
Dellinger, however, teaches both this and several other steps that claim 9 incorporates from claim 1 by reference, which are included below for context:
A method for displaying multiple views of one or more applications, comprising:
FIGS. 9A–9B are a flowchart representation of a method 900 in which multiple views of different applications are displayed. Dellinger ¶ 372. Additionally, since “FIGS. 5A–5O are used to illustrate the methods and/or processes of FIGS. 9A–9B,” Dellinger ¶ 372, they will be discussed together with their corresponding paragraphs and the paragraphs that describe method 900, below.
at an electronic device including a display generation component and one or more input devices:
“In some embodiments, the method 900 is performed by an electronic device,” such as device 100, with the operations of method 900 being performed by (or using) “a graphics module (e.g., graphics module 132), and a touch-sensitive display (e.g., touch-sensitive display system 112).” Dellinger ¶ 373.
concurrently displaying, via the display generation component: a first view of a first application in a first display mode that includes displaying respective content of the first application
Throughout steps 902–916, display 112 displays at least a “second application.” See, e.g., Dellinger ¶¶ 375 and 379. For example, the “second application” may be a “video-browsing application,” as shown in FIGS. 5C and 5J (among others). See Dellinger ¶¶ 379 and 254. To be clear, Dellinger’s “second application” corresponds to the “first application” of claim 9.
and a display mode affordance;
In addition to the second application, display 112 also displays a “home button 204.” See Dellinger ¶ 298 (explaining that home button 204 may be “a button displayed on the touch-sensitive display 112 which may simulate movement by also providing haptic feedback,” rather than the physical button shown in FIGS. 5C and 5J).
while displaying the first view of the first application, receiving a sequence of one or more inputs
Eventually, while displaying the second application, the device may perform operation 926 of the method, as shown in FIG. 9B. Within operation 926, “as shown in FIGS. 5K–5L, a user activates their home screen.” Dellinger ¶ 383. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 5J, while displaying the video-browsing application, the display 112 detects a contact 527 on the home button 204. Dellinger ¶ 298. Again, as explained above, home button 204 may be “a button displayed on the touch-sensitive display 112,” rather than the physical button shown in the figure.
in response to detecting the sequence of one or more inputs [displaying a second view of the first application in a second display mode that is different from the first display mode, which claim 9 further limits as follows:]
ceasing to display at least a portion of the first view of the first application that includes the respective content of the first application
“In response to detecting the contact 527 over the home button 204, then home screen is then displayed (FIG. 5K).” Dellinger ¶ 298.
while displaying a representation of the first application;
As shown in FIG. 5K, the home screen includes an icon 236, labeled “Video” for the video-browsing application. See, e.g., Dellinger ¶¶ 258–260 and 274, illustrating that the star icon labeled “Video” is a representation the video-browsing application throughout this disclosure.
and displaying, via the display generation component, at least a portion of a home screen that includes multiple application affordances;
FIG. 5K illustrates that the home screen displayed in response to selecting the home button 204 comprises multiple icons for different launchable applications on the device 100. See Dellinger ¶ 298; see also Dellinger ¶ 227–253 (describing the functionality of the home screen in general).
while continuing to display the portion of the home screen and the representation of the first application, but without displaying the respective content of the first application, receiving a second input selecting an application affordance associated with a second application;
Returning back to the overview of method 900, operation 926 further includes detecting “a request to open a third application (e.g., a contact 516 over a camera application, FIG. 5K), distinct from the first and the second applications.” Dellinger ¶ 383.
and in response to receiving the second input, concurrently displaying, via the display generation component: