DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 11/6/2025 for application number 17/825,886.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12-15, 19-24, 26-28 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 19-21, 23-24, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2008/0204424 A1) in view of Kawahara (US 2005/0204306 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2008/0198141 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Jin teaches a computing device comprising: a processor; and a touch-sensitive display screen coupled to the processor, the processor to receive gesture input on the touch-sensitive display screen (fig. 1, para. 0031-38) and operate the computing device in any one of at least two display modes, including a full-screen mode and a windowed mode (device can operate in full-screen mode, fig. 4, para. 0048-49, and in a windowed mode, figs. 6A-6D, 9C), wherein: during a given duration, the processor operates a plurality of applications concurrently, the plurality of applications including at least a first application, a second application, a third application, and a fourth application (Jin teaches executing a plurality of applications, fig. 11, S901); in the full-screen mode, the processor provides, on the touch-sensitive display screen, a user interface for only one application of the plurality of applications (see, e.g., fig. 4 showing only one application); and in the windowed mode, the processor: provides on the touch-sensitive display screen a plurality of cards in a two-dimensional arrangement, the plurality of cards including at least a first card corresponding to the first application, a second card …, a third card …, and a fourth card … (figs. 6A-6D, 9C); responds to a directional contact along a horizontal direction with respect to the touch- sensitive display screen by changing a position of the first card relative to the touch-sensitive display screen in the first direction (a drag from the first to last window is detected for scrolling the cards, which moves a first card in a first direction, fig. 9C, 9E, and para. 0066-67; in the “fan” display of Jin, fig. 6D, a drag from the first to last window would be horizontal); … wherein the processor, in response to receiving user input, transitions the computing device at least (i) from the full-screen mode to the windowed mode, or (ii) from the windowed mode to the full-screen mode (dragging on lower end of display unit is recognized as input to transition from full-screen to windowed mode, para. 0040).
However, Jin does not explicitly teach the plurality of cards including at least a first card corresponding to the first application, a second card corresponding to the second application, a third card corresponding to the third application, and a fourth card corresponding to the fourth application; and responds to a directional contact on a selected card of the first card, the second card, the third card, and the fourth card to move the selected card along a vertical direction that is different from the first direction on the touch-sensitive display screen by: identifying the selected card based on the directional contact; and dismissing the selected card off the touch-sensitive display screen … so that the corresponding application is closed.
Kawahara teaches the plurality of cards including at least a first card corresponding to the first application, a second card corresponding to the second application, a third card corresponding to the third application, and a fourth card corresponding to the fourth application (windows 108 and 110 each correspond to a different 2D application in fig. 1 and para. 0058, and fig. 4 shows four windows; it would follow logically that each of the four windows corresponds to one of four different applications); and responds to a directional [input] on a selected card of the first card, the second card, the third card, and the fourth card to move the selected card along a vertical direction that is different from the first direction on the … display screen by: identifying the selected card based on the directional [input]; and dismissing the selected card off the … display screen … so that the corresponding application is closed (in response to throw gesture from mouse, which is “moving the window quickly and releasing it,” the window is removed from the screen and the execution of the corresponding application is stopped, para. 0086-87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Jin and Kawahara before the time of invention, to modify the user interface as disclosed by Jin to include multiple applications and dismissal as taught by Kawahara.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the user interface of Jin to include the multiple applications and dismissal of Kawahara because the teachings of Kawahara would advantageously allow users to manage and stop the execution of the multiple applications disclosed in Jin, as well as view windows of the multiple applications (which Jin explicitly states is desirable, Jin, para. 0003-07).
However, Jin and Kawahara do not explicitly teach a responds to a directional contact on a selected card of the first card, the second card, the third card, and the fourth card to move the selected card along a vertical direction that is transverse to the first horizontal direction; dismissing the selected card off the touch-sensitive display screen in the vertical direction (to the extent that Kawahara teaches mouse gestures and dismissal off the screen, but it does not teach touch contacts or in what direction the window is dismissed).
Lee teaches responds to a directional contact on a selected card of the first card, the second card, the third card, and the fourth card to move the selected card along a vertical direction that is transverse to the first horizontal direction; dismissing the selected card off the touch-sensitive display screen in the vertical direction (flick using finger on touch screen can move object off touch screen in the direction of the flick, para. 0028, including unloading an application and removing it from the screen in response to vertical flick and scrolling to a new window in response to a horizontal flick, para. 0078-97, figs. 3-5; Lee teaches upward and downward flicks, para. 0081, and distinguishing between vertical flicks from left and right flicks, which are transverse directions, para. 0083, 0096-99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Jin, Kawahara, and Lee before the time of invention, to modify the horizontal gesture scrolling of Jin and dismissal as disclosed by Kawahara to include the directional contact and direction as taught by Lee in order to obtain a vertical flick dismissing the card off the screen (given that Jin uses a horizontal drag to scroll, it would be obvious to switch the directions of Lee for adding the dismissal, especially given that Lee’s broader teaching in para. 0028 is not horizontal / vertical specific).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the horizontal gesture scrolling of Jin and dismissal of Kawahara to include the directional contact and direction of Lee because Lee teaches more convenient gestures for touch screen devices that can be used in place of the mouse gestures of Kawahara (Lee, para. 0006).
In reference to claim 5, Jin and Kawahara do not explicitly teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the directional contact along the vertical direction comprises a drag gesture.
Lee teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the directional contact along the vertical direction comprises a drag gesture (Lee teaches a flick gesture, para. 0081, which is a type of drag gesture. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not explain the difference between a flick and drag, and the earliest filed application 12/126,145 does not mention a “flick” at all. However, the CIP specification incorporates by reference the disclosure of application 12/115,992, see para. 0064; the ‘992 application, published as US 2009/0278806 A1, states that “Referring now to FIG. 4H, in one embodiment the user can perform a drag-scroll operation by performing a drag gesture 402H (also referred to as a flick gesture) across screen 101,” para. 0089. Thus, in light of Applicant’s specification, a flick is a kind of drag gesture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Jin, Kawahara, and Lee before the time of invention, to modify the dismissal as disclosed by Kawahara to include the directional contact and direction as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the dismissal of Kawahara to include the directional contact and direction of Lee because Lee teaches more convenient gestures for touch screen devices that can be used in place of the mouse gestures
In reference to claim 6, Jin and Kawahara do not explicitly teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the directional contact along the vertical direction comprises a flicking action.
Lee teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the directional contact along the vertical direction comprises a flicking action (Lee teaches a flick gesture, para. 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Jin, Kawahara, and Lee before the time of invention, to modify the dismissal as disclosed by Kawahara to include the directional contact and direction as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the dismissal of Kawahara to include the directional contact and direction of Lee because Lee teaches more convenient gestures for touch screen devices that can be used in place of the mouse gestures
In reference to claim 7, Jin teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein each of the first application, the second application, the third application, and the fourth application are different applications (the four apps may be different, like phonebook, note pad, calculator, scheduler, remote control, etc., para. 0006).
In reference to claim 9, Jin teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cards further includes at least a fifth card corresponding to a fifth application and a sixth card corresponding to a sixth application (see fig. 9E showing 8 cards; it would be obvious that each card would be a different app in view of Kawahara as described in the rejection of claim 1 above), and wherein the processor is further configured to provide on the touch- sensitive display screen, while in the windowed mode, the entirety of at least some of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth cards and only a portion of at least some of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth cards (see fig. 9E – entirety of cards AAA, HHH, GGG, FFF, and EEE are displayed, and only a portion of BBB).
In reference to claim 10, Jin teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein in the windowed mode, at least one of the first card, the second card, the third card, or the fourth card comprises a static representation of a user interface for a corresponding activity (card may be an image corresponding to the window’s interface, which is a static interface, para. 0047).
In reference to claim 12, Jin teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein in the windowed mode, each card comprises a user interface for a corresponding application activity (card may be an image corresponding to the window’s interface, para. 0047).
In reference to claim 14, Jin teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the selected card is dismissed in the vertical direction off an edge of the touch-sensitive display screen (flick using finger on touch screen can move object off edge of touch screen in the direction of the flick, para. 0028).
In reference to claim 15, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 19, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 5 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 20, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 6 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 21, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 7 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 23, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 9 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 24, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 10 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 26, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 12 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 28, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 14 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
Claims 8 and 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2008/0204424 A1) in view of Kawahara (US 2005/0204306 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2008/0198141 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of Westerman et al. (Pub. No. 2008/0036743).
In reference to claim 8, Jin, Kawahara, and Lee do not explicitly teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the user input for transitioning the computing device from the full-screen mode to the windowed mode comprises an upward swipe gesture.
Westerman teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the user input for transitioning the computing device from the full-screen mode to the windowed mode comprises an upward swipe gesture (upward swipe gesture triggers a windowed mode that tiles all windows, para. 0135-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Jin, Kawahara, Lee, and Westerman before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the input as disclosed by Jin to include an upward swipe as disclosed by Westerman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the input of Jin to include the upward swipe of Westerman because it helps provide additional inputs with touch screens (Westerman, para. 0025-26).
In reference to claim 22, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 8 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
Claims 13 and 27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2008/0204424 A1) in view of Kawahara (US 2005/0204306 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2008/0198141 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of Brown et al. (Pub. No. 2004/0070631).
In reference to claim 13, Jin, Kawahara, and Lee do not explicitly teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein while operating the computing device in the windowed mode, the processor is further configured to shift the remaining cards to fill a void left by the dismissed card.
Brown teaches the computing device of claim 2, wherein while operating the computing device in the windowed mode, the processor is further configured to shift the remaining cards to fill a void left by the dismissed card (grid thumbnails are rearranged to fill space, para. 0049, fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Jin, Kawahara, Lee, and Brown before him at the time the invention was made, to modify the card dismissal as disclosed by Jin and Kawahara to include the rearrangement as taught by Brown.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the card dismissal of Jin and Kawahara to include the rearrangement of Brown because it would better conserve screen space.
In reference to claim 27, this claim is directed to a method associated with the device claimed in claim 13 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the arguments on pages 8-12 are identical to those filed 11/6/2025, so the response in the Final Rejection of 2/19/2026 remains applicable. Applicant further responds to the arguments made in the final rejection with additional arguments including: (1) the windowed mode in Jin is not applicable to multiple applications, (2) Lee teaches the wrong directions for actions, (3) Kawahara teaches mouse input in “any” direction.
For (1), paragraph 24 Jin explicitly states the windows associated with applications in execution together can be displayed on a single screen. “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” See MPEP § 2123. The single-application embodiments of Jin do not somehow teach away from multi-application embodiment in paragraph 24.
For (2), the exemplary embodiment shown at fig. 3 of Lee teaches horizontal movement “unloads” and moves an application off screen (i.e. dismisses an application card in the drag direction off-screen), and vertical movement displays second windows (i.e. scrolls cards). When the teachings of Lee are combined with Jin and Kawahara, it would be obvious the horizontal movement would scroll (as it already does in Lee), and so the horizontal movement would therefore unload / close applications.
For (3) Applicant’s interpretation of Kawahara is not unsupported by the reference, and Applicant’s interpretation of the combination of the references does not align with a person having ordinary skill in the art. Kawahara does not mention a throw direction; Kawahara’s silence on a direction does not imply “direction-agnostic functionality.” Applicant proposes that incorporating Kawahara would result in the horizontal movement both moving windows and dismissing windows; this is obviously absurd and would be immediately recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art as such. Applicant also argues that the combination of Jin in view of Kawahara and Lee relies on hindsight bias to combined, ignoring the explicit rationales found in the prior art. To summarize the combination in simpler terms, a person having ordinary skill in the art, looking at Jin and in particular paragraphs 14 and 84 would see Jin teaches a useful displaying multiple running application windows in a single arrangement, although Jin does not focus on this embodiment. To improve and implement Jin, the person would reasonably look to Kawahara whose teachings show improvements to multitasking for desktop computers: Kawahara’s figures show multiple application windows as well as techniques for managing the windows, like a “throw gesture” to dismiss the application. The person would also look to Lee, which advantageously focuses on gestures that make it more convenient to interact with touch screen devices, including a directional gesture that moves an application window off-screen and unloads the application, and an orthogonal gesture for scrolling to different windows. A person looking to implement the multitasking of Jin in fig. 6D would start with different application windows being displayed and scrolled in response to horizontal drags (as is taught by Jin). The person looking to improve the multitasking functionality of Jin would add the dismissal of the application, which is taught to be advantageous for multitasking by Kawahara, and dismiss the window off the screen by a vertical gesture, which taught by Lee as being advantageous for touch gesture control of windows.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew T. Chiusano whose telephone number is (571)272-5231. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. 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.
/ANDREW T CHIUSANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
