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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 07/16/2025, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 8, 10, and 18 have already been cancelled. No Claim has been added. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, p. 11-14) with respect to the amended limitations in independent claims 1, 11, and 20, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that “Trachtenberg ¶ [0064] exclusively describes an "Auto-Rotation Accessory" as a component that does not receive any user input and that is not used in conjunction with a user input. To the contrary, "the Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 [is used] to automatically shift 90° in direction-from vertical to horizontal (portrait to landscape configuration), or vice-versa depending on the image to be displayed on the Display Device 105."” (Remarks, p. 13).
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s premises and conclusion.
Trachtenberg ¶10 discloses the display device “has the ability to alter its orientation automatically depending on the characteristics of the displayed content.” Although ¶64 discloses the auto-rotation automatically rotates depending the image to be displayed on the display device, the term “image to be displayed” is a generic term, which includes a user interface to be displayed. Further, ¶80 discloses a Display Device 105 in vertical Portrait orientation to display three 16:9 images 2501, 2502, and 2503 vertically, one on top of the other as shown in Fig. 25. It is obvious that, although images 2501, 2502, and 2503 each has a horizontal/landscape orientation, the layout of the 3 images has a portrait orientation, and the display mode is in a portrait orientation depending on the layout orientation.
Furthermore, ¶79-80 discloses that a layout may be chosen by a user.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a user to choose a layout as taught by ¶79-80, and the Auto-rotate would rotate depending on the content orientation as taught by ¶10 and ¶64. The suggestions/motivations would have been that “the Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 is preferably configured to rotate a Display Device 105 based on the desired viewing content.” (¶64), and thus provides “easy, convenient, and elegant consumption and display.” (¶6).
Applicant’s arguments directed to amended limitation have been addressed in the detail rejection below.
In response to applicant's argument that “Trachtenberg provides no express or implied motivation to combine the management or application of the layout templates with the Auto-Rotation Accessory”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary embodiment may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary embodiment; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that “images are not layouts”, as shown in Fig. 80 and Fig. 25, the term “image to be displayed” is a generic term, which includes a user interface to be displayed.
The arguments regarding dependent claims for the virtue of their dependency are moot because the independent claims are not allowable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trachtenberg et al. (US 20170222985 A1), and in view of Atkins et al. (US 20090002764 A1), and further in view of Page (US 20210065888 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Trachtenberg discloses An electronic device for displaying multiple pieces of content on a display of the electronic device, the electronic device comprising: (Fig. 2 showing an electronic device. Fig. 25 showing a display device; and ¶44 reciting “FIG. 25 is a front elevational view of a display device of the present invention simultaneously displaying three separate images simultaneously”)
the display; (Fig. 2 showing a Display Assembly 201. ¶56)
a memory storing one or more instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory to: (ABST reciting “System and method for displaying digital content on a display device, comprising a display screen, . . ., and a processing controller within the structural assembly, comprising a memory, display processor . . . An application is provided, configured to run on a computer with memory, processor, and user input device, and configured to communicate via the internet with the processing controller of the display device and a service cloud comprising a server, memory, and processor, to control the display of digital content on the display screen.”)
control the display to display a content, while the electronic device operates in a first display mode; (Fig. 25 showing to display a content (including 3 images 2501, 2502, and 2503) on the display device. ¶80 reciting “One specific type of layout is illustrated in FIG. 25, showing a Display Device 105 in vertical Portrait orientation to display three 16:9 images 2501, 2502, and 2503 vertically, one on top of the other.”, where the specific type of layout displayed corresponds to the content, and the vertical portrait orientation corresponds to a first display mode.)
in response to a first user input for selecting the multi view layout, identifying a type of the multi view layout; (¶79 reciting “A user can select a layout template”. Further, ¶80 disclosing user can select a multi view layout type, for example the portrait layout shown in Fig. 25, and reciting “A user can select this pre-defined layout using the Client Control 107 user interface”. Therefore, Trachtenberg discloses that a user can select a type of a multi view layout (of a certain orientation) for displaying multiple pieces of content.)
determine whether to rotate the display of the electronic device based on a comparison between: (i) the type of the multi view layout corresponding to the first user input, and (ii) a current display mode of the electronic device, irrespective of images of the multiple pieces of content that are being displayed or that are to be displayed, such that, while operating in the first display mode;
(¶10 reciting “preferably has the ability to alter its orientation automatically depending on the characteristics of the displayed content.” Further, ¶64 teaching to determine whether to rotate the display of the electronic device and automatically rotate the display of the electronic device based on the image (corresponding to a selected layout) to be displayed on the device according to the determination, and reciting “The Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 preferably allows free rotation of full 90° from vertical to horizontal and vice-versa so that a Display Device may be viewed horizontally or vertically. In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, the Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 also comprises a micro-controller connected to the iC-DPC 500 of the Display Assembly 201 for precise calibration, alignment and control through VSC 101. This preferably enables the Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 to automatically shift 90° in direction—from vertical to horizontal (portrait to landscape configuration), or vice-versa—depending on the image to be displayed on the Display Device 105. That is, the Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 is preferably configured to rotate a Display Device 105 based on the desired viewing content.”
Although ¶64 discloses the auto-rotation automatically rotates depending the image to be displayed on the display device, the term “image to be displayed” is a generic term, which includes a user interface to be displayed. Further, ¶80 discloses a Display Device 105 in vertical Portrait orientation to display three 16:9 images 2501, 2502, and 2503 vertically, one on top of the other as shown in Fig. 25. It is obvious that, although images 2501, 2502, and 2503 each has a horizontal/landscape orientation, the layout of the 3 images has a portrait orientation, and the display mode is in a portrait orientation depending on the layout orientation.
Furthermore, ¶79-80 discloses that a layout may be chosen by a user.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a user to choose a layout as taught by ¶79-80, and the Auto-rotate Accessory 208 would determine whether to rotate depending on the content (i.e. the chosen layout) orientation and would automatically rotate the display device according to the determination as taught by ¶10 and ¶64. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill that determining whether or not to rotate of the display depending on the content would involve a comparison between the current display orientation and the content orientation. The suggestions/motivations would have been that “the Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 is preferably configured to rotate a Display Device 105 based on the desired viewing content.” (¶64), and thus provides “easy, convenient, and elegant consumption and display.” (¶6). )
based on the type of the multi view layout corresponding to the first display mode, display the multiple pieces of content in the first display mode, by configuring windows in accordance with the selected layout, without automatically rotating the display of the electronic device (Fig. 25, ¶10, ¶64), and
based on the type of the multi view layout corresponding to a second display mode, automatically rotate the display of the electric device and display the multiple pieces of content in the second display mode, by configuring windows in accordance with the selected layout (Fig. 25, ¶10 and ¶64),
wherein the first display mode is any one of a landscape mode and a portrait mode, and the second display mode is the other one of the landscape mode and the portrait mode.
(Fig. 25. ¶80 reciting “One specific type of layout is illustrated in FIG. 25, showing a Display Device 105 in vertical Portrait orientation to display three 16:9 images 2501, 2502, and 2503 vertically, one on top of the other.” ¶64 reciting “The Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 preferably allows free rotation of full 90° from vertical to horizontal and vice-versa so that a Display Device may be viewed horizontally or vertically.”)
However, Trachtenberg does not explicitly disclose to
control the display to display a multi view menu including a thumbnail of a multi view layout while the electronic device operates in a first display mode, the thumbnail including an image representing a window configuration of the multi view layout containing images representing the content to be provided in each window of the multi view layout;
configuring windows based on the selected thumbnail.
Atkins teaches “FIG. 9 is a diagrammatic view of a user interface presenting a selected candidate arrangement of the graphic objects in a main window and presenting alternative arrangements of the graphic objects in a side window.” (¶30). As shown in Fig. 9, the device displays a multi view menu 118 including a thumbnail of a multi view layout 98 representing a window configuration of the multi view layout. Further, Fig. 10 shows the multi view layout 98 containing images (i.e. IMG_421, IMG_423, IMG_425 etc.) representing the content to be displayed in each window of the multi view layout. Furthermore, ¶98 recites “FIG. 9 shows a user interface 113 that includes a main window 115 and a side window 118. The main window 115 presents a user-selected layout 116. The side window 118 presents thumbnail images of alternative arrangements 120 of graphic objects 100 . . . The user may replace the current layout 98 (see FIG. 8) that is presented in the main window of the user interface 90 with a selected one of the alternative arrangements . . . FIG. 10 shows the user interface 90 after the user has selected the "<<Apply" button 122 while the thumbnail image (i.e., "variation 2") of the alternative layout 116 was selected.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device (taught by Trachtenberg) to display a multi view menu including a thumbnail of a multi view layout while the electronic device operates in a first display mode, the thumbnail including an image representing a window configuration of the multi view layout containing images representing the content to be provided in each window of the multi view layout; and to configure windows based on the selected thumbnail (taught by Atkins). The suggestions/motivations would have been that “users are able to guide the system to a particular layout of the graphic objects that meets the aesthetic preferences of the user, even when the user does not have a specific arrangement of the graphic objects in mind.” (¶266).
Atkins teaches to display a multi view menu. However, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins does not explicitly disclose the displayed multi view menu including selectable items of apps or sources for displaying the apps or sources in a multi view function, and a selectable item for generating a customized multi view layout, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the one or more instructions to control the display to display together a thumbnail of a previously set multi view layout and a thumbnail of a customized multi view layout generated by a user.
Page teaches a context menu 500 as shown in Fig. 5, where the menu includes selectable items 502-508. Further, ¶110 recites “The context menu 500 may include a plurality of control buttons that may trigger different actions. For example, the context menu 500 may include a trends button 502, an insights engine button 504 (which may trigger display of an insights GUI, as will be described in more detail below with respect to FIGS. 17-20), an edit room button 506, and a room layout set of buttons 508. . . When a user makes adjustments to the layout of a single-patient GUI, including changing which patient monitoring parameter tiles are included in the single-patient GUI, the user may save the layout of the single-patient GUI, which may then be selectable as a customized layout from the context menu.” In other words, Page teaches the displayed menu including selectable items of apps or sources for displaying the apps or sources in a multi view function, and a selectable item for generating a customized multi view layout.
As shown in Fig. 5, default room layout 1 and 2 are displayed together with the customize layout 1; and ¶110 recites “The room layout set of buttons 508 may include a button for each different possible layout for how the single-patient GUI is configured for display. For example, a first layout (e.g., corresponding to single-patient GUI 200) may be displayed when the “Default 1” button is selected, a second default/preconfigured layout may be displayed when the “Default 2” button is selected, and a third layout (which may be a layout customized by the user) may be displayed when the “Customize 1” button is selected.” Atkins teaches, in Fig. 9, the device displays a multi view menu 118 including a thumbnail of a multi view layout 98 representing a window configuration of the multi view layout.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaches from Trachtenberg in view of Atkins and Page such that the multi view menu of the device includes selectable items of apps or sources for displaying the apps or sources in a multi view function, and a selectable item for generating a customized multi view layout, wherein the displaying of the multi view menu comprises displaying together a thumbnail of a previously set multi view layout and a thumbnail of a customized multi view layout generated by a user. The suggestions/motivations would have been to solve the problem that “the presentation of patient medical information to the care providers may require multiple time-consuming and cumbersome requests or searches for information” (¶2), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins and Page discloses The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the type of the multi view layout comprises a horizontal layout and a vertical layout. (Trachtenberg, ¶64 reciting “The Auto-Rotation Accessory 208 preferably allows free rotation of full 90° from vertical to horizontal and vice-versa so that a Display Device may be viewed horizontally or vertically.” Atkins, Fig. 9 showing alternate layouts 120 being horizontal or vertical. The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 11 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 13, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins and Page discloses The electronic device of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
receive a second user input for selecting a first multi view layout to be executed from among at least one multi view layout, and
identify a first type of the first multi view layout.
(Atkins, Figs. 8-10. ¶98 reciting “FIG. 9 shows a user interface 113 that includes a main window 115 and a side window 118. The main window 115 presents a user-selected layout 116. The side window 118 presents thumbnail images of alternative arrangements 120 of graphic objects 100 . . . The user may replace the current layout 98 (see FIG. 8) that is presented in the main window of the user interface 90 with a selected one of the alternative arrangements . . . FIG. 10 shows the user interface 90 after the user has selected the "<<Apply" button 122 while the thumbnail image (i.e., "variation 2") of the alternative layout 116 was selected.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 11 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 19, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins and Page discloses The electronic device of claim 18,
wherein the at least one multi view layout comprises at least one of the multi view layout previously set in the electronic device or the customized multi view layout generated by a user,
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the one or more instructions to control the display to classify the thumbnail of the previously set multi view layout and the thumbnail of the customized multi view layout.
(Atkins, ¶97 teaching alternative layouts being previously set in the device or a customized layouts generated by a user, and reciting “The user interface 90 provides a user with an option to submit a request for the system 60 to generate a specified number of alternative layouts of the graphic objects 100 that differ from the current layout 98 in one or more respects.” Fig. 9 showing the alternative layouts in the side window 118. Page, Fig. 5. See Claim 11 rejections for detailed analysis.)
Claim 1, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 11, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 11.
Claim 20, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 11, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 11.
Claim 2, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 12, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 12.
Claim 3, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 13, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 13.
Claim 9, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 19, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 19.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trachtenberg et al. (US 20170222985 A1), and in view of Atkins and Page, and further in view of Hong (US 20160011736 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins and Page discloses The electronic device of claim 12.
However, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins and Page does not explicitly discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
compare whether a requested multi view layout is same as a previously stored multi view layout; and
based on a result of the comparing, control the display to display a user interface for storing the requested multi view layout as a customized multi view layout.
Hong teaches “a digital photo book creation and management system” (ABST). More specifically, Hong teaches storing a customized layout, and recites “the auto-generated photo book pages from the templates can be edited/customized via user gestures on the touch screen device 101, for example, user can drag the photo from the coordinate specified by the template layout to another location, and/or resize the photo frame on the page. Further, the user can save the changed layout as a new customized template layout in the client database 201 and sync with the server database 202 so that the template can be used during future photo book generation. . . In case a duplicate photo book entry exists, the synchronization is configured to compare the client device 101 entry and the server 102 entry's last update timestamp (stored in database) such that the newer version of the same entry overwrites the older version.” (¶49).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device (taught by Trachtenberg in view of Atkins and Page) to determine a changed layout and enable a user to save it as a new customized layout (taught by Hong). The suggestions/motivations would have been to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins, Page and Hong discloses The electronic device of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
compare whether a requested multi view layout is same as a second previously stored multi view layout; and
based the requested multi view layout being different from the previously stored multi view layout, store the requested multi view layout.
(See Claim 14 rejections for detailed analysis.)
Regarding Claim 16, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins, Page and Hong discloses The electronic device of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
control the display to display a third user interface for generating a customized multi view layout based on a request for the multi view function being received;
generate a first customized multi view layout to be provided in the multi view function based on a third user input; and
store the first generated customized multi view layout in the memory.
(Hong, ¶49 reciting “the auto-generated photo book pages from the templates can be edited/customized via user gestures on the touch screen device 101, for example, user can drag the photo from the coordinate specified by the template layout to another location, and/or resize the photo frame on the page. Further, the user can save the changed layout as a new customized template layout in the client database 201 and sync with the server database 202 so that the template can be used during future photo book generation.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 14 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 17, Trachtenberg in view of Atkins, Page and Hong discloses The electronic device of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the one or more instructions to, based on the first customized multi view layout being stored, identify a second type of the first customized multi view layout. (Hong, ¶49 teaching the layout template is determined based on the number of photo slots available in a layout or metadata, and reciting “the photo book templates may be stored within the server database 202 and the server 102 can be configured to determine the template. The template may be determined randomly or based on the metadata of the images stored in the database 201, 202. . . the user can save the changed layout as a new customized template layout in the client database 201 and sync with the server database 202 so that the template can be used during future photo book generation.” Thus, in order to use the customized layout in the future, features such as metadata or the number of photo slots in the customized layout must have been identified. The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 14 rejections.)
Claim 4, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 14, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 14.
Claim 5, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 15, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 15.
Claim 6, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 16, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 16.
Claim 7, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 17, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611