DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/16/2026.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-17, and 19-21 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent, and are newly amended.
Claims 3, 13 and 18 are previously canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an execution history of a user for of the first content”, wherein it seems the applicant intended “an execution history of a user for [[of]] the first content”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen; Xiaohui et al. (hereinafter Chen – US 20180102111 A1) in view of Bank; Judith H. et al. (hereinafter Bank – US 20130007662 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Chen teaches:
A display apparatus comprising: (e.g., one or more of client devices in fig. 1 and ¶ 24)
a display; (¶¶ 24 and 26 and fig. 1)
memory storing one or more instructions;
and at least one processor operatively coupled to the display and the memory,
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to: (computers, ¶¶ 26 and 105 and fig. 1. Computers have memory for storing instructions, processor(s), and displays, operating as herein claimed, when instructions are executed )
control the display to display first content, (displaying a first visual content, fig. 2 and ¶19)
based on receiving a command for executing second content, (initiating display of second content [command for executing second content], ¶ 40)
(i) compare a first priority associated with the first content with a second priority associated with the second content, (comparing presentation priorities of first and second content, ¶¶ 34 and 38, fig. 2)
(ii) display one content of the first content and the second content in a first area of the display based on the comparison of the first priority with the second priority, (based on at least portions of the second content having higher priority than the first content, visibility of the second content is improved, e.g., by displaying the second content in a position of more prominence, e.g., near the center, ¶¶ 38 and 43)
and (iii) control the display to display the other content of the first content and the second content on a second area of the display based on the comparison of the first priority with the second priority, (based on at least portions of the second content having higher priority than the first content, visibility of the second content is improved, e.g., by displaying the second content in a position of more prominence, e.g., near the center, ¶¶ 38 and 43, and the visibility of the first content is reduced, ¶ 18, e.g., moved away from the center, and closer to a border, ¶¶ 43 and 53)
[…],wherein the first area is an area comprising a center of the display, (a more prominent position, e.g., closer or nearer to the center, ¶ 43)
and wherein the second area comprises at least a portion of a remaining area excluding the first area of the display. (the visibility of the first content is reduced, ¶ 18, e.g., moved away from the center, and closer to a border [second area comprises at least a portion of a remaining area], ¶¶ 43 and 53)
Chen does not appear to expressly teach, but Bank teaches:
and identify the first priority based on an execution history of a user for of the first content and the second priority based on the second execution time of the second content (identifying priority based on execution history by explicitly stating that an application's usage duration history is updated upon each execution, which can then be used as primary criteria to prioritize the display of application icons [these act as visual representations of information, files, applications, or functions––“content”] based on past behavior, ¶ 36)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Chen to include and identify the first priority based on an execution history of a user for of the first content and the second priority based on the second execution time of the second content, as taught by Bank.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the apparatus, by making efficiently ordered display that helps users quickly access relevant content to accomplish prioritized tasks, Bank Abstract and ¶¶ 2-3.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chen further teaches:
wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to:
control the display to display the first content on a third area of the display, based on receiving the command and based on a determination the first priority is higher than the second priority, control the display to display the first content in the first area and display the second content in the second area, and based on receiving the command and based on a determination the first priority is lower than the second priority, control the display to display the second content in the first area and display the first content in the second area. (while both first and second content are displayed, it is determined that a priority of a first content has changed and its visibility is improved, e.g., ¶ 53 and fig. 3)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chen further teaches:
wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to:
control the display to display a focus on an edge of one of the first area and the second area; (e.g., a pointer is displayed to the side of a paragraph [focus on an edge], ¶ 76)
and based on the focus being located for a threshold time or more in the second area or receiving a command for selecting the second area in a state where the focus is located in the second area, control the display to display the other content in the first area and display the one content in the second area. (priority and visibility [receiving a command for selecting] of a first content is increased based on a user pointer position being overlaid over a first content, ¶ 6)
Independent Claims 11 and 16:
Claims 11 and 16 are directed to a method and apparatus for performing functions of claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale.
Claims 12 and 17:
The rejection of claims 11 and 16 are incorporated. Claims 12 and 17 are directed to a method and apparatus for performing the functions of claim 2, and are rejected using similar rationale.
Claims 14 and 19:
The rejection of claims 11 and 16 are incorporated. Claims 14 and 19 are directed to a method and apparatus for performing the functions of claim 4, and are rejected using similar rationale.
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chen-Bank further teaches:
wherein the first content is displayed in accordance with execution of a first application, and the second content is displayed in accordance with a second application different from the first application. (the use of multiple applications for displaying content and/or that the content displayed can have multiple sources, Chen ¶ 109, and Bank the display priority of applications can be determined [identify the first…and second priority] based application usage information, as explained above for claim 1).
Claim(s) 5, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20180102111 A1) in view of Bank (US 20130007662 A1), as applied to claims 1, 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Kotler; Matthew et al. (hereinafter Kotler – US 20130019175 A1).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chen does not appear to expressly teach, but Kotler teaches:
wherein the display is larger than or equal to a threshold size or at a preset ratio (conventional computing systems are presumed to have a minimum screen size that enables users to interact with the user interface at a particular precision, ¶ 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chen to include wherein the display is larger than or equal to a threshold size or at a preset ratio, as taught by Kotler.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality and usability of the method by having a minimum screen size that enables users to interact with the user interface at a particular precision, Kotler ¶ 2.
Claims 15 and 20:
The rejections of claims 11 and 16 are incorporated. Claims 15 and 20 are directed to a method and apparatus for performing the functions of claim 4, and are rejected using similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20180102111 A1) in view of Bank (US 20130007662 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lundback; Niklas et al. (hereinafter Lundback – US 20110050640 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chen further teaches:
further comprising: a plurality of speakers (client devices includes audio speaker devices for outputting sound, ¶ 112 and figs. 1 and 15)
Chen does not appear to expressly teach, but Lundback teaches:
wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to: output sound corresponding to the one content through a first speaker closer to the first area than the second area among the plurality of speakers, and output sound corresponding to the other content through a second speaker closer to the second area than the first area among the plurality of speakers. (a touch display in which a spatialized sounds associated with a number of displayed objects can be outputted from an audio transducers [first speaker and second speaker] closest to the objects, Abstract and ¶¶ 178 and 185, and figs. 1 and 27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chen to include wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to: output sound corresponding to the one content through a first speaker closer to the first area than the second area among the plurality of speakers, and output sound corresponding to the other content through a second speaker closer to the second area than the first area among the plurality of speakers, as taught by Lundback.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the audio experience and functionalities afforded by the method, Lundback ¶ 3.
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Lundback further teaches:
wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to increase a volume of the sound corresponding to the one content or reduce a volume of the sound corresponding to the other content. (the objects are apportioned with relative [increase and reduce] volume sound settings, shown as percentages, based on the positions of the objects, ¶¶ 180 and 188-189 and figs. 27-28)
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Lundback further teaches:
wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to, based on a preset event occurring in the other content, increase a volume of the sound corresponding to the other content. (that the relative volumes for the objects, see ¶¶ 180 and 188-189 and figs. 27-28, are changed based on user movements [preset event] of the objects, ¶ 140)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20180102111 A1) in view of Bank (US 20130007662 A1) and Lundback (US 20110050640 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Motika; Goutam et al. (hereinafter Motika – US 20170201610 A1) and Han; Yen-Kang et al. (hereinafter Han – US 20160094648 A1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Chen does not appear to expressly teach, but Motika teaches:
wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to, based on the user terminal receiving a call, mute the sound corresponding to the one content and reduce a volume of the sound corresponding to the other content. (a system with a plurality of speaker, Abstract, wherein when a particular device receives a phone call, a speaker closest to the particular device is muted, while the volume is lowered on other speaker(s) not closest to the particular device, ¶ 33).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Motika to include wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to, based on the user terminal receiving a call, mute the sound corresponding to the one content and reduce a volume of the sound corresponding to the other content., as taught by Motika.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities and user experience afforded by the method, Motika ¶¶ 23 and 25-26.
Chen further teaches that displayed content include shared content, ¶ 31. Still, Chen does not appear to expressly teach, but Han teaches:
wherein the first content is content mirrored with a user terminal, (conventionally, users share content by using screen mirroring, ¶ 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chen to include wherein the first content is content mirrored with a user terminal, as taught by Han.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality of method by sharing content in a conventional fashion, Chen ¶ 31 and Han ¶ 6.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20180102111 A1) in view of Bank (US 20130007662 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rakshit; Sarbajit K. et al. (hereinafter Rakshit – US 20190354169 A1).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chen does not appear to expressly teach, but Rakshit teaches:
wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to change at least one of a size of the first area, a position of the first area, a size of the second area, or a position of the second area based on at least one of an arrangement state of the display or a resolution of the one content (a display module determines that the content is to be displayed in an a different orientation [arrangement state of the display], e.g., landscape layout mode, and changes sizes the display area based on the orientation, ¶¶ 2 and 64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chen to include wherein the one or more instruction , when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the display apparatus to change at least one of a size of the first area, a position of the first area, a size of the second area, or a position of the second area based on at least one of an arrangement state of the display or a resolution of the one content, as taught by Rakshit.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and versatility afforded by the method by changing mode to allow taller or wider display modes for content, Rakshit ¶¶ 2-3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
LEE; Juhye et al. US 20210201709 A1 is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing the providing of content associated with another content, ¶ 6, based on “execution time” or number of execution times, corresponding to that content, e.g., an application, ¶ 92 and figs. 6-8.
Crockett; Brett G. et al. US 20150332680 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a method of rendering object-based audio comprising determining an initial spatial position of objects having object audio data and associated metadata, determining a perceptual importance of the objects, and grouping the audio objects into a number of clusters based on the determined perceptual importance of the objects, Abstract.
Kuwahara; Kazuki US 20120278765 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing ranking of menu options objects and displaying top ranked positions in the ranking are displayed around the center of the menu, ¶ 93.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights