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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed 04/06/2026 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/13/2026 has been entered.
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 03/13/2026.
By the amendment, claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 19, 20 , 22 and 24 were amended. Claims 27-28 were newly added. Claims 8 and 21 were canceled.
Claims 1-7, 11, 15-20, 22 and 24-28 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 11 and 24 (Remarks pages 12-15) that Reeves fails to obtain its active device configurations based on either an application category of an application or based on either a first size of a first display of a second device or a second size of a second display of a first device as required by amended claims 1, 11 and 24. Particularly, that Reeves merely discloses obtaining its device configurations instead based on which application is running on mobile OS 130. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Reeves discloses that plural applications are different applications (¶98). Different applications can broadly be considered to each have their own category. The language of each of claims 1, 11 and 24 do not preclude this interpretation: that a first application and second application are different applications and can be broadly considered to be different application categories (first VS. second). Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to provide further limitations of how the categories differ.
Further, Reeves discloses updating an interface configuration parameter, wherein the parameter can be configured based on, for example, pixel density of the hardware parameter of the display, that is a size of the display of a device (¶63). Reeves also discloses that the active configuration includes device configuration qualifiers defining different properties of the different devices (¶99). Accordingly, Reeves does disclose updating the active configuration based at least on obtained sizes of the displays of plural of the display devices. The arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jeong fails to teach the above deficiencies of Reeves (Remarks page 15). The Examiner notes that the sole deficiency of Reeves is the projecting, in the first orientation, a second screen of the first application onto the second device such that performing the landscape/portrait orientation switching to display the first screen in the second orientation continues to display the second screen in the first orientation. These features are taught by Jeong as presented in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 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 CFR 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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 15-20, 22 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVES, US 20130019183 A1, in view of JEONG, US 20170139576 A1.
Regarding claim 1, REEVES discloses an application interface display method implemented by a first device (¶27, ¶68, ¶110), wherein the application interface display method comprises:
projecting, in a first orientation, a first screen of a first application onto a second device (Fig. 8, ¶64, ¶70, ¶78, ¶83-84, ¶86, ¶107-109);
receiving a screen rotation request, wherein the screen rotation request initiates landscape/portrait orientation switching of a window of the first application displaying the first screen (Fig. 9, ¶87-90, ¶111);
updating, based on the screen rotation request, the first application supporting window adjustment, and an application category of the first application, an interface configuration parameter of the first application (Fig. 9, ¶83-84, ¶86, ¶88-90, ¶98, ¶111) by:
obtaining, based on a first size of a first display of the second device, the interface configuration parameter when an application category of the first application is a first-type application (Fig. 10, ¶63, ¶98-100); and
obtaining, based on a second size of a second display of the first device, the interface configuration parameter when the application category is a second-type application (Fig. 10, ¶63, ¶98); and
sending first information to the second device (Fig. 9, ¶83, ¶88-90, ¶111),
wherein the first information comprises the interface configuration parameter (Fig. 9, ¶88-90, ¶111), and
wherein the first information instructs the second device to perform the landscape/portrait orientation switching on the window to display the first screen in a second orientation (Fig. 9, ¶88-90, ¶111).
REEVES fails to disclose projecting, in the first orientation, a second screen of the first application onto the second device such that performing the landscape/portrait orientation switching to display the first screen in the second orientation continues to display the second screen in the first orientation.
JEONG discloses methods for displaying and controlling the orientation of application windows (¶7-10). In particular, JEONG discloses embodiments wherein a two screens are displayed on a display in the same orientation and one of the screens can be directed to switch orientation while the orientation of the remaining screen remains unchanged (Fig. 10, ¶144-147). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of REEVES and JEONG before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the maintaining of a second screen in a first orientation while changing the orientation of a first screen, as suggested by JEONG, with the changing the orientation of a first screen of the first application of REEVES. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to increase user convenience while in a plural application plural orientation environment, as suggested by JEONG (¶15).
Regarding claim 2, REEVES and JEONG disclose the application interface display method of claim 1, and REEVES further discloses wherein receiving the screen rotation request comprises receiving, from the second device, the screen rotation request (Fig. 9, ¶87).
Regarding claim 3, REEVES and JEONG disclose the application interface display method of claim 1, and REEVES further discloses wherein receiving the screen rotation request comprises detecting, in response to an operation from a user on the first device (¶74, ¶90) that the screen rotation request is received (¶88, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, REEVES and JEONG disclose the application interface display method of claim 1, and REEVES further discloses wherein updating the interface configuration parameter comprises updating, based on a window size of the first application (¶99-101, ¶103-104), the interface configuration parameter (¶101, ¶103-104).
Regarding claim 5, REEVES and JEONG disclose the application interface display method of claim 4, and REEVES further discloses wherein updating the interface configuration parameter further comprises:
adjusting, based on the screen rotation request, a width of the window to be greater than a height of the window when the screen rotation request is for switching the window from portrait display to landscape display (Fig. 12, ¶103); and
adjusting, based on the screen rotation request, the width to be less than the height when the screen rotation request is for switching the window from the landscape display to the portrait display (Fig. 12, ¶103).
Regarding claim 6, REEVES and JEONG disclose the application interface display method of claim 4, and REEVES further discloses wherein updating the interface configuration parameter comprises:
obtaining, based on the window size, first configuration information of the first application, wherein the first configuration information comprises interface boundary information of the first application (¶99-100);
obtaining, based on the interface boundary information, second configuration information of the first application (¶103), wherein the second configuration information comprises:
a third orientation of the first application (Fig. 12, ¶103);
an icon displayed on a first application interface (Fig. 12, ¶103); or
a text displayed on the first application interface (Fig. 12, ¶103);
removing a process of the first application from screen configuration monitoring (¶103); and
updating the first configuration information and the second configuration information according to the interface configuration parameter (¶103).
Regarding claim 7, REEVES and JEONG disclose the application interface display method of claim 4, and REEVES further discloses:
obtaining, based on an application development attribute or based on application data, the window size (¶99-101).
Regarding claim 9, REEVES and JEONG disclose the application interface display method of claim 1, and JEONG further discloses wherein the first-type application is a video-type application (¶34, ¶46, ¶52, ¶70, ¶81, ¶88).
Regarding claims 11, 15-20 and 22, claims 11, 15-20 and 22 recite limitations similar to claims 1, 2-7 and 9 respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 24-25, claims 24-25 recite limitations similar to claims 1-2, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 26, REEVES and JEONG disclose the application interface display method of claim 1, and REEVES further discloses, wherein the first orientation comprises a portrait orientation, wherein the second orientation comprises a landscape orientation, and wherein the first information further instructs the second device to change displaying the first screen in the portrait orientation to being displayed in the landscape orientation while continuing to display the second screen of REEVES and JEONG in the portrait orientation (Fig. 9, ¶88-90, ¶111).
Regarding claim 27, REEVES and JEONG disclose method of claim 1, and REEVES further discloses removing a process of the first application from screen configuration monitoring of the first device to prevent the first application from responding to a display rotation event of the first device (¶111).
Regarding claim 28, REEVES and JEONG disclose the method of claim 1, and while REEVES further discloses maintaining the orientation of plural screens of multiple applications (¶111), REEVES fails to explicitly disclose a third application having a third screen which continues to display in the first orientation. JEONG, however, discloses embodiments wherein more than two applications are executed at the same time (¶175). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of REEVES and JEONG before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the maintaining of a third application screen, as suggested by JEONG, with the changing the orientations of application screens of REEVES and JEONG, yielding the predictable result of a third screen of a third application continuing to display in its first orientation on the second device of the REEVES and JEONG. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to increase user convenience while in a plural application plural orientation environment, as suggested by JEONG (¶15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MARTYNOV et al.
US 20140184471 A1
DEVICE WITH DISPLAYS
SIMMONS et al.
US 20140210708 A1
DISPLAY MODE MECHANISMS
HULBERT et al.
US 20210357169 A1
USER INTERFACES FOR DEVICES WITH MULTIPLE DISPLAYS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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 L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights