Detailed Action
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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. If this application names joint inventors, 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 1-4, 8, 10-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parulski et al (US 2003/0222889 A1) in view of Windows 8 (as evidenced by Win_8_Rotate.pdf) (“W8”).
Regarding claim 1, Parulski discloses a method, comprising: detecting a plurality of user interface (UI) elements (510A) included in a first arrangement in a UI of an application (522A), wherein the application is displayed with a first aspect ratio (Fig. 9A), the first arrangement associated with the application being displayed with the first aspect ratio (522B). W8 suggests—where Parulski does not disclose—an aspect ratio of a first width of the application to a first height of the application on a first device (p. 2), wherein detecting the plurality of UI elements includes determining an anchor point for each of the plurality of UI elements based on a first arrangement of the plurality of UI elements (p. 2: horizontal distance between screen edge and left border of UI elements is the same in both landscape and portrait orientations), receiving an indication of a change in an aspect ratio of the application from the first aspect ratio to a second aspect ratio of a second width of the application to a second height of the application (p. 2), generating a modified UI associated with the application having the second aspect ratio, the modified UI including a different, second arrangement of the plurality of the UI elements (p. 2), wherein generating the modified UI includes generating the second arrangement of the plurality of UI elements associated with the application being displayed with the second aspect ratio based on the determined anchor points for each of the plurality of UI elements (p. 2), and displaying the application with the second aspect ratio having the modified UI (p. 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Parulski and W8 in order to accommodate auto-rotation of non-square displays and to preserve the visual continuity of the UI during after screen rotation.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 20, Parulski discloses wherein generating the second arrangement of the plurality of UI elements includes determining whether any of the UI elements overlap (Figs. 9A – 9B: portrait buttons 512B – 516B are displayed as tilted on the screen (as compared to landscape counterparts 512A – 516A) in order to fit them in the available screen space i.e. avoid overlapping each other).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Parulski discloses wherein in response to determining that a first UI element and a second UI element overlap, modifying at least one of the first UI element and the second UI element (Figs. 9A – 9B: portrait buttons 512B – 516B are displayed as tilted on the screen (as compared to landscape counterparts 512A – 516A) in order to fit them in the available screen space i.e. avoid overlapping each other).
Regarding claim 8, Parulski discloses wherein the application is displayed with the second aspect ratio on the first device (Figs. 9A – 9B).
Claims 11 and 18 recite a system and computer program product, respectively, comprising substantially the same elements as those of claim 1 above. They are accordingly ejected for the same reasons as given supra.
Claims 5, 7, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parulski in view of W8 and Dye et al (US 2016/0188171 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Dye suggests—where Parulski does not disclose—wherein modifying the at least one of the first UI element and the second UI element includes making the at least one of the first UI element and the second UI element collapsible (¶ [0061]: computing device … may track changes in … aspect ratio … to convert the display of split UI component from a ribbon-style to a palette and vice versa). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Parulski, W8 and Dye in order to make more efficient use of the user interface space.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Dye suggests—where Parulski does not disclose—wherein modifying the at least one of the first UI element and the second UI element includes separating the at least one of the first UI element and the second UI element into two or more UI sub-elements (¶ [0061]: computing device … may track changes in … aspect ratio … to convert the display of split UI component from a ribbon-style to a palette and vice versa). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Parulski, W8 and Dye in order to make more efficient use of the user interface space.
Claims 6, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parulski in view of W8 and Vienneau et al (US 2014/0089795 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Vienneau suggests—where Parulski does not disclose— wherein modifying the at least one of the first UI element and the second UI element includes displaying the at least one of the first UI element and the second UI element on a second device (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Parulski, W8 and Vienneau in order to make more efficient use of the user interface space.
Regarding claim 9, Vienneau suggests—where Parulski does not disclose—wherein the application is displayed with the second aspect ratio on a second device (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Parulski, W8 and Vienneau in order to make more efficient use of the user interface space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 21 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
In rejecting claim 1, the Office did not identify any specific feature of W8 as being the claimed anchor point, but rather alleged that the horizontal distance between the screen's edge and the left border of UI elements in W8's AutoRotation figure (illustrated above) being the same in both landscape and portrait orientations discloses the recited anchor points of claim 1. Action at 3. It appears that the Office is attempting to rely on inherency for asserting that W8's figure necessarily discloses an "anchor point." However, Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the Office has not properly demonstrated inherency, and thus has failed to articulate a prima facie case of unpatentability.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous Office Action made no reference to inherency, nor was any such thing intended. The visual disclosure of the constancy of margins around the Win8 icons in transitioning from landscape to portrait mode is quite literal. Examiner’s notation “horizontal distance between screen edge and left border of UI elements is the same in both landscape and portrait orientations” is sufficient to inform a PHOSITA of the relevance of the picture to the referenced feature.
Applicant argues:
As described above, the Action relies on W8's "horizontal distance" between a tablet's screen edge and left border of UI elements as disclosing the claimed anchor points. The cited portions of W8, however, merely illustrate two orientations of the tablet: landscape and portrait. Indeed, W8's entire disclosure is directed to instructions that describe how to enable and disable (i.e., Lock or Unlock) the autorotate feature in the Windows 8 operating system. W8 is silent as to any anchor points or as to how the UI elements are arranged in both of the orientations..
The depicted pictures demonstrate Windows 8’s placement of icons on a screen in portrait mode vs. landscape mode. As noted supra, a cursory inspection of the pictures shows that the horizontal distance between the leftmost icons and the left edge of the display is maintained in both modes. That is all the limitation requires, and that is what the picture shows. As to the meaning of the term “anchor point,” Applicant’s specification states:
Example anchor points may be … how far a UI element is from each corner of the display, how far a UI element is from each edge of the display, etc.
(Emphasis added). Thus, the showing that the distance (“how far”) from the left edge of the display to the icon is constant (or substantially so) is enough to satisfy the requirements of § 103, i.e. suggest the feature to a PHOSITA.
Applicant argues:
Applicant further submits that the Office is improperly relying on proportions of figures for establishing a case of obviousness. As discussed above, the Office alleged that the "horizontal distance between screen edge and left border of UI elements is the same in both landscape and portrait orientations" discloses the above-recited features of claim 1. However, not only does the referenced figure and associated text fail to describe any determination of an anchor point, or any other element equivalent to an anchor point, but the Office's rationale and explanation as to why this particular figure discloses multiple features of claim 1, including the above-recited features, relies on proportions of features in a low-resolution image that are not indicated or otherwise described. As per MPEP § 2125.II:.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted supra, the pictures are sufficient to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art that a horizontal distance between a given icon can be maintained between changing screen orientations. Further, the W8 image as supplied is in fact not the secondary reference—that would be Windows 8—it is merely evidence of same. Unfortunately, the Office does not presently allow for color or video files or other types of evidence to be included in an application folder. The Examiner is trying to provide the best possible representation of the disclosures of the reference. Applicant was provided with a URL to the picture as included in the PTO-892 form in the office action of 09/03/2025.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been addressed by the revised rejections supra and are thus now moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715