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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 18 February 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claim 1 was amended.
Claims 5-14 have been added.
All rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 2/18/26 has been accepted and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the element “…the resource…” in line 1. However, Claim 1 already disclosed “a resource accessed by or for a first operating environment” and “ resource accessed by or for a second operating environment”. Therefore, it is unclear if “the resource” of claim 6 depends on the ““a resource accessed by or for a first operating environment” in Claim 1, “a resource accessed by or for a second operating environment” in Claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 6 as “…wherein the resource accessed by or for a first operating environment or the resource accessed by or for a second operating environment comprises at least one of a file, a configuration setting, a library, or a data object”.
Claim 11 recites the element “…a resource…” in line 2. However, Claim 1 already disclosed “an access context that includes a resource accessed by or for a first operating environment” and “ access context that includes …resource accessed by or for a second operating environment”. Therefore, it is unclear if “the resource” of claim 11 depends on the ““a resource accessed by or for a first operating environment” in Claim 1, “a resource accessed by or for a second operating environment” in Claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 11 as “…wherein the change to the access context comprises adding or removing the resource accessed by or for a first operating environment or the resource accessed by or for a second operating environment from the access context”
Claim 12 recites the element “…the operable entity…” in line 1. However, Claim 1 already disclosed “a first operable entity”. Therefore, it is unclear if “the operable entity” of claim 12 depends on the “a first operable entity” in Claim 1 or should be viewed as new element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 12 as “…wherein the first operable entity…”.
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, 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, 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Radkovitz (US 20140152693 A1, 2014) in further view of Schildt (“Components and Containers - Swing GUI“, 3/15/2017, 3 pages)
As per independent claim 1, Radkovitz discloses a method comprising:
detecting, using a processor, an access context that includes a resource accessed by or for a first operating environment of a first operable entity and that includes a resource accessed by or for the second operating environment of a first operable entity; (FIG 2-4; 0001, 0020, 0022-0024, 0026-0030: Discloses an application/window being displayed of a GUI. The application is associated with different display modes: hidden, collapsed, and expanded wherein each mode has one or more different UI elements/resources being displayed on a screen/within the application. Using screen/application, the user interacts with portions of the screen/application to select/change a display mode wherein UI elements/resources appear in locations in the application. For example, FIG 3 shows different displayed modes in which each mode discloses space that displays a certain amount of first content/resource being displayed. In addition, in one mode, another element/resource is detected but currently hidden from being displayed wherein another mode that element/resource is displayed. Furthermore, each of these displayed modes are a form of different operating environments. Each mode discloses a different arrangement of the UI elements/resources virtually displayed. Thus, a first display mode/operating environment and second display mode/operating environment are disclosed).
automatically, receiving change information, using the processor, identifying a change to at least one of the access context and the resource accessed by or for the first operating environment; and (0031-0036: User provides gestures to issue a command to change display modes/operating environments which will cause the change of the sizing of the first resource being displayed and whether or not the second resource is displayed and how exactly its displayed. Issuing a command to change display modes/operating environments is a form of the application receiving change information to change the displayed configuration within the application and its resources. Furthermore, Radkovitz discloses receiving the change information automatically from an external/peripheral device. Radkovitz discloses the computing device uses a detection functionality such as a camera to capture and interpret the user gestures/motions for controlling the functionality of the device. (0059) Radakovitz et al discloses the camera may be a Microsoft Kinect motion capture device which is an implicitly known external device. (0068) Thus, Radkovitz states that the gestures explained in 0032-0036 are able to be performed in front of a camera such the Kinect wherein the camera would capture the gesture being performed and interpret the captured gesture into a particular command/instruction which would be provided to the computing device to be executed. It is implicit that the camera, such as the Kinect, would capture the gesture by the user, automatically convert the gesture into a computer readable command, and automatically issue/send the command to the computing device so that processor of the computing device would automatically perform the command associated with the gesture perform by the user. Thus, if the user performed a downward gesture in front of the camera, the camera would capture the gesture, interpret the gesture as a command/instruction to change the current view mode/operating environment to the next viewing mode/operating environment (form of identifying a change), and have command/instruction be sent to the computing device to have the current view mode/operating environment be changed to the next view mode/operating environment as described in 0033. Thus, Radkovitz discloses the change information is automatically received by the computing device that identifies a change to at least one of the access context and the resource accessed by or for the first operating environment.)
performing an operation, using the processor, based on the change information, to change the resource accessed by or for the first operating environment and the resource accessed by or for the second operating environment when the change information identifies the change to the access context and to change the access context or the resource accessed by or for the second operating environment when the change information identifies the change to the resource accessed by or for the first operating environment. (FIG 2-4; 0001, 0020, 0022-0024, 0026-0030: in response, the size of the displayed content area (element/resource) is resized to accommodate the displaying (or undisplaying) of the command area interface (second element/resource). In other words, the access context is updated to change the appearance of the content area (first resource) based on the selected mode/operating environment. One of the modes/operating environments involving displaying the command area interface (second resource) (that was not previously displayed) and changing the size of the display area of the first resource. Another mode involves change the size of the second resource to display addition elements while also changing the size of the display area of the first resource even more. Another mode/operating environment removes the second resource from being displayed while increase the size of display area of the first resource)
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the first operating environment and the second operating environment each comprise at least one of a container, a virtual machine, or an operating system, and wherein the first operating environment is distinct from the second operating environment. However, Schildt discloses “a component is an independent visual control, such as a push button or slider. A container holds a group of components. Thus, a container is a special type of component that is designed to hold other components. Furthermore, in order for a component to be displayed, it must be held within a container. Thus, all Swing GUIs will have at least one container. Because containers are components, a container can also hold other container” (page 1) In other words, Schildt discloses a component must be in a container to be displayed and that a container can be stored with another container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention for Radkovitz embodiments and functionalities to use containers, such as disclosed by Schildt, since it would have provided the instrinic advantage of ensuring portability, isolation, and consistent performance across different environments.
As explained above, in conjunction with Schildt, FIG 3 of Radkovitz discloses shows multiple modes/operating environment. A first mode shown in FIG 3 of Radkovitz shows merely only applicant content being displayed. The displayed content itself is a component of the GUI. Since a component must be in container to be displayed according to Schildt, one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed that the displayed application content in the first mode of Radkovitz as a first container. Furthermore, in a different displayed mode, a ribbon user interface comprising a tab is displayed which encapsulates the application content as shown in FIG 3. The ribbon user interface comprising the tab is also viewed as a component. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the displayed ribbon user interface comprising the tab in the second mode of Radkovitz as a second container. As stated before, the content of FIG 3 is a first container. In addition, FIG 3 shows a tab within the ribbon user interface comprises/encapsulating the displayed content. Since the content is viewed as a first container and the ribbon user interface comprising the tab is viewed as a second container and encapsulates the content, then one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that the second container is a nested container since the first container is within the second container. Thus, Radkovitz discloses a first displayed mode comprising only a first container and second mode comprising at least a second (nested) container not in the first displayed mode. Thus, the first operating environment and the second operating environment, of Radkovitz, each having their own containers wherein the (second) container of the second operating environment is different than the (first) container of the first operating environment. The combination of these features as viewed/explained above would have provided the intrinsic advantage of enabling complex layout structures, hierarchical grouping, and modular UI design. Thus, the combination of Radkovit and Schildt teaches the subject matter of the first operating environment and the second operating environment each comprise at least one of a container, a virtual machine, or an operating system, and wherein the first operating environment is distinct from the second operating environment.
As per dependent claim 4, Radkovitz discloses the operating environment includes an operating system. (0061)
As per dependent claim 5, Radkovitz discloses wherein the first operating environment and the second operating environment execute on a same host computing device (FIG 2; 0019: same device)
As per dependent claim 6, Radkovitz discloses wherein the resource comprises at least one of a file, a configuration setting, a library, or a data object (FIG 3; 0053: content can be a document, form of a file or data object)
As per dependent claim 7, Radkovitz discloses wherein the change information is received via at least one of a network, a peripheral device, or an interprocess communication mechanism. (As previous explained in claim 1, Radkovitz discloses receiving the change information automatically from an external/peripheral device. Radkovitz discloses the computing device uses a detection functionality such as a camera to capture and interpret the user gestures/motions for controlling the functionality of the device. (0059) Radakovitz et al discloses the camera may be a Microsoft Kinect motion capture device which is an implicitly known external device. (0068) Thus, Radkovitz states that the gestures explained in 0032-0036 are able to be performed in front of a camera such the Kinect wherein the camera would capture the gesture being performed and interpret the captured gesture into a particular command/instruction which would be provided to the computing device to be executed)
As per dependent claim 8, Radkovitz discloses synchronizing the resource accessed by or for the first operating environment with the resource accessed by or for the second operating environment (FIG 2-4; 0001, 0020, 0022-0024, 0026-0030: Based on the language under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), changes made to the attributes of the second resource result in the attributes of the first resource being changed, thus, a form of synchronizing is disclosed.)
As per dependent claim 9, Radkovitz discloses wherein the access context defines a set of resources accessible to both the first operating environment and the second operating environment (FIG 3: Based on the language under BRI and with the term “set of resources” undefined by the language, the first resource (form of a set of resources) is accessible in at least the first and second operating environment/modes)
As per dependent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the Examiner points to the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein to reject claim 10, explaining the art discloses each operating environment/mode having their own container (first operating environment/mode having a form of a first container and second operating environment/mode having a form of a second container.)
As per dependent claim 11, Radkovitz discloses wherein the change to the access context comprises adding or removing a resource from the access context (Based on the language under BRI, the language does not explicitly indicate or limit how a resource is added or removed. Therefore, FIG 2-4; 0001, 0020, 0022-0024, 0026-0030: in response, the size of the displayed content area (element/resource) is resized to accommodate the displaying (or undisplaying) of the command area interface (second element/resource). In other words, the access context is updated to change the appearance of the content area (first resource) based on the selected mode/operating environment. One of the modes/operating environments involving displaying the command area interface (second resource) (that was not previously displayed) and changing the size of the display area of the first resource. Another mode involves change the size of the second resource to display addition elements while also changing the size of the display area of the first resource even more. Another mode/operating environment removes the second resource from being displayed while increase the size of display area of the first resource.)
As per dependent claim 12, Radkovitz discloses wherein the operable entity comprises an application executing within the first operating environment and the second operating environment.(0014-0015, 0025; FIG 3)
As per dependent claim 13, Radkovitz discloses detecting that the first operating environment and the second operating environment are associated with the first operable entity based on a common identifier.( Note: the language does not explicitly indicate or limit what a common identifier is or how the operating environment detects a common identifier among them. Therefore, Based on the language under BRI, Radkovitz discloses all modes/environments disclosed the display of content. (FIG 3; 0022-0024) 0053 discloses the displayed content may be a document. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that a document is associated with at least a filename identifier since a document is a data file and also the filename of the data file is used when displaying the file. Thus, since all modes/environments display the document (as shown in FIG 3), then all modes/environments use the same filename identifier since they use the filename in order to display the document. Therefore, this is similar to detecting that the first operating environment and the second operating environment are associated with the first operable entity based on a common identifier.
As per dependent claim 14, Radkovitz discloses wherein the change information identifies a modification to a shared resource, and wherein performing the operation propagates the modification to both the first operating environment and the second operating environment. (Note: the language does not explicitly indicate or limit what a shared resource is. Therefore, based on the language under BRI, FIG 3 shows the content (first resource) is shared across each mode/operating environment. Furthermore, FIG 2-4; 0001, 0020, 0022-0024, 0026-0030 of Radkovitz discloses in response, the size of the displayed content area (element/resource) is resized to accommodate the displaying (or undisplaying) of the command area interface (second element/resource). In other words, the access context is updated to change the appearance of the content area (first resource) based on the selected mode/operating environment. One of the modes/operating environments involving displaying the command area interface (second resource) (that was not previously displayed) and changing the size of the display area of the first resource. Another mode involves change the size of the second resource to display addition elements while also changing the size of the display area of the first resource even more. Another mode/operating environment removes the second resource from being displayed while increase the size of display area of the first resource.)
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radkovitz in further view of Schildt in further view of Kasireddy (“A Beginner-Friendly Introduction to Containers, VMs and Docker”, 3/4/2016, 17 pages )
As per dependent claim 2 and 3, Radkovitz discloses the embodiments and functionalities described herein may operate via a multitude of computing systems and distributed systems comprising various user interfaces (e.g. operating environments) (0059). However, Radkovitz fails to disclose operating environment includes a LINUX container or a virtual machine ("VM"). However, Tague discloses software architectures are used in conjunction with hardware architectures to create devices and machines that are implementable using virtual machines, operating system level virtualization (e.g., Linux containers), and the like. (0118) It is noted that these system may could inputs that recognizes/detect body and touch gestures (0124-0125)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention for Radkovitz embodiments and functionalities to use computer system such as virtual machines and Linux containers since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of since the containers and VMs isolate an application and its dependencies into a self-contained unit that can run anywhere.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172