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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 2/17/2026, where claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 25-27 are amended; claims 31 and 32 are added; and claims 1, 5-14, 18-27, 31, and 32 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed on 2/17/2026, with respect to previous rejections of independent claims 1, 14, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered. Applicant argued that Zhang in view of Woo do not teach all of the limitations as currently amended. Examiner generally agreed and thus the instant claims are currently rejected under new grounds in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, that all dependent claims are patentably distinguished over the cited prior art at least in view of the dependency from their respective independent claims, and requests that the rejections for all dependent claims be reconsidered and withdrew for the reasons argued above. However, their respective independent claims are now rejected under new grounds in view of the amendment and thus the dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-14, 18-20, 23-27, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, (CN 115809033 A) (hereinafter Zhang) and in view of Yun, (WO 2018216865 A1) (hereinafter Yun).
Referring to claim 1, Zhang teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a memory (Pg. 10 lines 10-14, memory);
a physically resizable display (Pg. 10 lines 10-14, telescopic display screen); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (Pg. 10 lines 10-14, “a processor, the processor by invoking the computer program stored in the memory, for executing the content display method provided by the embodiment”), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine that an application is being started (Pg. 2 lines 72-73, “determining the width-to-height ratio corresponding to the to-be-display content”)…
determine a display size for the physically resizable display in response to the application being started (Pg. 2 lines 72-77, “determining the width-to-height ratio corresponding to the to-be-display content according to the width-height ratio corresponding to the to display content, determining the target width-height ratio of the telescopic display screen”), wherein a previous size of the physically resizable display is based on content of the application and the control interface of the application (Pg. 7 lines 46-47, “obtaining the history width-to-height ratio corresponding to the to-be-display content”. Examiner notes, it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the GUI art that the content of the application includes the control interface of the application.),…and wherein the display size is determined based on the previous size of the physically resizable display (Pg. 7 lines 46-47, “obtaining the history width-to-height ratio corresponding to the to-be-display content”); and
cause the physically resizable display to be resized based on the determined display size for the start of the application (Pg. 3 lines 1-3, “controlling the extension or contraction of the telescopic display screen, adjusting the width-height ratio of the telescopic display screen to the target width-height ratio”).
Zhang teaches the limitations above. However, Zhang does not explicitly teach the application include a control interface that is overlappable with content of the application and the control interface of the application is displayed non-overlapping with the content of the application.
Yun teaches the application include a control interface that is overlappable with content of the application (Figure 32A-C show the menu displayed in region 182 is overlappable with the content 181.) and the control interface of the application is displayed non-overlapping with the content of the application (¶ [103], fig. 7a, “FIG. 7 A is a diagram illustrating a method of displaying a menu in a region of a display device withdrawn in a longitudinal direction according to a first embodiment of the present invention. Referring to FIG. 7 A, the display unit 180 can be withdrawn in a left direction. The display unit 180 can include only the first region 181 before withdrawal and include the first region 181 and the second region 182 located at the left side of the first region 181 after withdrawal.”)
Zhang and Yun are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with device with resizable display (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Zhang and Yun before them to modify the electronic device for adjusting width-height ratio of Zhang to incorporate the function of enlarging screen size to display additional information as taught by Yun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Yun (¶ [44]-[235]), because the function of enlarging screen size to display additional information does not depend on the electronic device for adjusting width-height ratio. That is the function of enlarging screen size to display additional information performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to continue to display the content without interruption as suggested by Yun (¶ [104]).
Referring to claim 5, Zhang further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the previous size associated with the content of the application is based on an aspect ratio of a video to be played (Pg. 2 lines 74-77, “according to the width-height ratio corresponding to the to display content, determining the target width-height ratio of the telescopic display screen”. Pg. 5, “wherein the to-be display content can include…application interface of each application…wherein the application can include…video application”. Pg. 7 lines 46-47, “obtaining the history width-to-height ratio corresponding to the to-be-display content”.)
Referring to claim 6, Zhang further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display size is determined based on information stored in a database, wherein the information stored in the database comprises at least one of a per application display size usage, a count of a size used per application, an orientation of the physically resizable display, or time of day (Pg. 7 lines 73-79, “In some embodiments, according to the historical aspect ratio, determining the to display content be-corresponding width-height ratio, may include: (1) when there are a plurality of historical width and height ratio, determining the same historical aspect ratio number, obtaining a plurality of number; (2) determining the historical width-to-height ratio corresponding to the maximum number in multiple numbers as the width-height ratio corresponding to the to-be-display content”. Examiner notes, in the field of graphical user interface, it is inherent that historical data are stored in a storage, e.g., database, in order to be used at a later time.)
Referring to claim 7, Zhang further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to determine the display size, the at least one processor is configured to:
display a prompt to resize the physically resizable display;
obtain an input to the prompt; and
resize the physically resizable display based on the input to the prompt (Pg. 8 lines 32-36, “the telescopic display screen can display a width-height ratio setting button, user can click the width-height ratio setting button, so that the telescopic display screen can display an input frame, the user can input the corresponding width-height ratio in the input frame, so that the electronic device receives the input width-height ratio setting instruction”).
Referring to claim 10, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Zhang does not explicitly teach automatically resized to the determined display size based on a resize mode setting.
Yun further teaches automatically resized to the determined display size based on a resize mode setting (¶ [211], “As shown in FIG. 29A, the entire region of the display unit 180 can be inserted. In particular, when the display device 100 operates in a speaker mode, the display unit 180 can be entirely inserted. The controller 170 can receive an image display command while the display device operates in the speaker mode. The controller 170 can withdraw the display unit 180 when the image display command is received while the display device operates in the speaker mode.” ¶ [212], “the controller 170 can divide the screen into the first region 181 and the second region 182, display content corresponding to the image display command in the first region 181, display an audio controller for controlling the speaker mode in the second region 182”. ¶ [213], “When withdrawal of the display unit 180 is finished, as shown in FIG. 29C, the display unit 180 can display the content in the first region 181 and the audio controller in the second region 182.”)
Referring to claim 11, Zhang further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the physically resizable display is an automatic rollable display (Pg. 4 lines 15-20, “the electronic device provided by the application is configured with a telescopic display screen, that is, the telescopic display screen can be extended, also can shrink…so as to realize the telescopic purpose. based on the telescopic display screen, the electronic device can extend the telescopic display screen”).
Referring to claim 12, Zhang further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to switch among a set of resize modes, wherein resize modes, of the set of resize modes comprise at least two of:
a first resize mode where automatic resizing is disabled;
a second resize mode where automatic resizing is performed absent a prompt to resize; and
a third resize mode where a prompt is displayed prior to resizing the physically resizable display (Pg. 8 lines 4-9, “it can be the need to display the to-be-display content, the user sets the corresponding to display content ratio, also can be preset corresponding relation of the to-be-display content and width-height ratio, built in the electronic device, so as to display the to display content, through the corresponding relation, determining the width-height ratio corresponding to the to-be-display content”).
Referring to claim 13, Zhang further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the physically resizable display is automatically resized to the determined display size based on device state information (Pg. 5 lines 73-78, “assuming that the application interface M corresponding to the width-height ratio is 4: 3, the target width and height ratio is 4: 3, assuming the current width and height ratio of the telescopic display screen is 2: 3, then the electronic device Z can control the telescopic display screen in the width direction, so as to adjust the width-height ratio of the telescopic display screen to 4: 3.”)
Referring to claim 31, Zhang further teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the device state information includes at least one of a current size of the physically resizable display, a minimum size of the physically resizable display, or a maximum size of the physically resizable display (Pg. 5 lines 73-78, “assuming that the application interface M corresponding to the width-height ratio is 4: 3, the target width and height ratio is 4: 3, assuming the current width and height ratio of the telescopic display screen is 2: 3, then the electronic device Z can control the telescopic display screen in the width direction, so as to adjust the width-height ratio of the telescopic display screen to 4: 3.”)
Regarding claims 14, 18, 19, 20, 23-26, and 32, these claims recite the method performed by the apparatus of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10-13, and 31 respectively; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 27, the instant claim recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions when executed by a processor performs the same method steps of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yun as applied to claims 7 and 20 above, and further in view of Choi et al., (US 12393225 B2) (hereinafter Choi).
Referring to claim 8, Zhang in view of Yun teach The apparatus of claim 7. However, Zhang in view of Yun do not explicitly teach the prompt includes one or more previously used sizes of the physically resizable display for the application.
Choi teaches the prompt includes one or more previously used sizes of the physically resizable display for the application (15:23-26, fig. 10, “The information 1011 may include a visual element 1012 indicating the first size that is the current size of the display region, and a visual element 1013 indicating the second size corresponding to the reference state.” 15:44-52, figs. 9-10, “In operation 909, the processor 120 may change the size of the display region to the second size, based on identifying that the second user input is received while the information is displayed. For example, referring to FIG. 10, in the state 1010, the processor 120 may receive a second user input 1015 to select a visual element 1013 among the visual element 1012 and the visual element 1013 in the information 1011. The processor 120 may change the state 1010 to the state 1020 in response to the second user input 1015.” 8:51-53, “The reference state may be a state of the display region when the user interface of the software application has been displayed before the user input is received in operation 301.”)
Zhang, Yun, and Choi are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with device with resizable display (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Zhang in view of Yun and Choi before them to modify the electronic device for adjusting width-height ratio of Zhang in view of Yun to incorporate the function of providing a display reference state as taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Choi (5:6-33:59), because the function of providing a display reference state does not depend on the electronic device for adjusting width-height ratio. That is the function of providing a display reference state performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to improve clarity of the interface by allowing visually see the difference in display size as suggested by Choi (15:23-32).
Regarding claim 21, the instant claim recites the method performed by the apparatus of claim 8; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yun as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Li et al., (EP 4018284 B1) (hereinafter Li).
Referring to claim 9, Zhang in view of Yun teach the apparatus of claim 1. However, Zhang in view of Yun do not explicitly teach determine the display size based on a display orientation associated with the application.
Li teaches determine the display size based on a display orientation associated with the application (¶ [0027], “The adaptive aspect ratio adjuster has this information in real time. In addition, a user of the device 1 may choose to operate the device 1 in either portrait mode or in landscape mode. Correspondingly, the rollable touch-sensitive display 4 would be oriented in either the portrait mode or in the landscape mode. Knowledge of the current orientation of the rollable touch-sensitive display 4 enables the adaptive aspect ratio adjuster to calculate best possible aspect ratio in either of the aforementioned modes.”)
Zhang, Yun, and Li are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with device with resizable display (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Zhang in view of Yun and Li before them to modify the electronic device with telescopic display screen of Zhang in view of Yun to incorporate the function of calculating the best aspect ratio in either portrait mode or landscape mode as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Li (¶ [0019]-[0070]), because the function of calculating the best aspect ratio in either portrait mode or landscape mode does not depend on the electronic device with telescopic display screen. That is the function of calculating the best aspect ratio in either portrait mode or landscape mode performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to improve the usability of the interface by finding the best aspect ratio for the specific display mode as suggested by Li (¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 22, the instant claim recites the method performed by the apparatus of claim 9; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20080291225 (Arneson) – discloses flexible display that is able to accommodate different shapes of a reconfigurable housing.
US 20230384929 (Wang) – discloses method for controlling a retractable display screen based on determined display content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights