DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE and Amendment dated 01 September 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 13, 18, 20 and 23 are amended. Claim 12 has been cancelled. Claims 25 has been added. Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20-25 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 13 and 21-24 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.
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 18 and 20-24 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.
Claims 18 and 20 recite the limitation “the user gesture”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 21-24 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their respective base claims.
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 1-3, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson et al. (US 2012/0227007 A1) in view of Matthews et al. (US 2006/0123353 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Nicholson teaches a method comprising:
receiving a first gesture [(e.g. see Nicholson paragraph 0028) ”Responsive to the user clicking on the "Taxes" common taskbar icon”].
displaying, in response to the first gesture acting on a label aggregate in a current interface, at least one label accommodated in the label aggregate, each label accommodated in the label aggregate being generated based on an application interface [(e.g. see Nicholson paragraph 0028 and Fig. 3B numeral 350B, 360B) ”Responsive to the user clicking on the "Taxes" common taskbar icon … The taskbar icons are grouped by task, as determined via one of the methods described herein. Thus, the "Taxes" icon, involving (as described with reference to FIG. 3A) a user's home taxes project applications and files, includes two applications. In this case, the applications are TURBOTAX and ACROBAT, and the files are a TURBOTAX file and a ".pdf" file 370B. Responsive to the user clicking on the "Taxes" common taskbar icon, these files are listed in a popup 360B and thus grouped together, allowing the user to easily locate the files of "Taxes"”].
displaying, after detecting an end of the first gesture, a target application interface corresponding to a target label selected by a user gesture from the at least one label [(e.g. see Nicholson paragraphs 0001, 0028, 0030, 0031 and Fig. 3B numeral 370B and claims) ”an embodiment associates WINDOW 1 and WINDOW 2 as being associated with a common task 450 and groups taskbar icons for these applications in a common taskbar icon 460. The temporal grouping may result in a display as depicted for example in FIG. 3B … switching between open applications (repeatedly selecting or bringing different applications to the foreground) … further comprising: responsive to user interaction with the popup listing, bringing an object in the popup listing interacted with to a foreground view … clicking on one of the open document's taskbar icon in the popup view causes that document to be brought to the foreground in the display … Responsive to the user clicking on the "Taxes" common taskbar icon, these files are listed in a popup 360B and thus grouped together, allowing the user to easily locate the files of "Taxes" and switch back and forth between them while working on a home taxes project … the applications are TURBOTAX and ACROBAT, and the files are a TURBOTAX file and a ".pdf" file 370B”].
Nicholson does not specifically teach wherein in a case where a single label is accommodated in the label aggregate, the method further comprises: displaying, in the current interface, an application interface corresponding to the single label in a floating window, after detecting a click trigger operation acting on the label aggregate in the current interface. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Matthews teaches:
wherein in a case where a single label is accommodated in the label aggregate, the method further comprises: displaying, in the current interface, an application interface corresponding to the single label in a floating window, after detecting a click trigger operation acting on the label aggregate in the current interface [(e.g. see Matthews paragraphs 0009, 0032, 0088, 0123 and Figs. 2-5 and 19E) ”displaying a rich presentation taskbar button on a taskbar with simple taskbar buttons. In one embodiment, the rich presentation taskbar button is displayed at the same size as the simple taskbar button … FIG. 5 also illustrates a window of a media player application 504 displayed on the display 501. The media player application taskbar button 508 provides an appearance of a simple taskbar button in that the taskbar button 508 displays only the name of the corresponding application (i.e., "Windows Media") … This taskbar button that corresponds to the media player application can provide the name of the application (i.e., the words "Media Player Application", for example, may be written in the taskbar button). The taskbar may also optionally display an icon that can identify the application. For example, a trademark or logo can be present in the taskbar button to enhance user recognition of the application itself Clicking or selecting this type of taskbar button (i.e., clicking on any location in the taskbar button, for example) restores the corresponding window to the display … taskbar buttons associated with more than one application are combined into a single taskbar button and is displayed in a menu”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 2-5 and 19E, if the taskbar button is consolidated with multiple applications then a selection menu is displayed (Fig. 19E numeral 1923), but if the taskbar button is a singular application it will instead just restore the corresponding application window to the display (Figs. 4-5 numeral 504).
Therefore, considering the teachings of Nicholson and Matthews, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein in a case where a single label is accommodated in the label aggregate, the method further comprises: displaying, in the current interface, an application interface corresponding to the single label in a floating window, after detecting a click trigger operation acting on the label aggregate in the current interface, as taught by Matthews, to the teachings of Nicholson because it saves the user time and increases the efficiency of managing application windows on a display (e.g. see Matthews paragraph 0004).
As for dependent claim 2, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 1 and Nicholson further teaches:
wherein said displaying, in response to the first gesture acting on the label aggregate in the current interface, the at least one label accommodated in the label aggregate comprises: determining a starting point position of the first gesture [(e.g. see Nicholson paragraph 0028 and Fig. 3B) ”Responsive to the user clicking on the "Taxes" common taskbar icon”].
and displaying the at least one label accommodated in the label aggregate in response to the starting point position being located on the label aggregate in the current interface [(e.g. see Nicholson paragraph 0028 and Fig. 3B numeral 350B, 360B) ”Responsive to the user clicking on the "Taxes" common taskbar icon … The taskbar icons are grouped by task, as determined via one of the methods described herein. Thus, the "Taxes" icon, involving (as described with reference to FIG. 3A) a user's home taxes project applications and files, includes two applications. In this case, the applications are TURBOTAX and ACROBAT, and the files are a TURBOTAX file and a ".pdf" file 370B. Responsive to the user clicking on the "Taxes" common taskbar icon, these files are listed in a popup 360B and thus grouped together, allowing the user to easily locate the files of "Taxes"”].
As for dependent claim 3, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 1, but Nicholson does not specifically teach the following limitations. However, Matthews teaches:
wherein said displaying, after detecting an end of the first gesture, the target application interface corresponding to the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label comprises: determining a first gesture parameter of the first gesture after detecting the end of the first gesture; determining, based on the first gesture parameter, the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label and displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label [(e.g. see Matthews paragraphs 0032, 0052) ”a cursor may be hovered over a location to display a thumbnail associated with a taskbar button … For example, a trademark or logo can be present in the taskbar button to enhance user recognition of the application itself Clicking or selecting this type of taskbar button (i.e., clicking on any location in the taskbar button, for example) restores the corresponding window to the display”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 17, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 1 and Nicholson further teaches:
further comprising: obtaining configuration information corresponding to the label aggregate; configuring the label aggregate based on the configuration information; and presenting the label aggregate with a display effect corresponding to the configuration information in the current interface [(e.g. see Nicholson paragraphs 0026, 0028 and Fig. 3B) ”Finally, for "Taxes", defined as a task, taskbar icons for applications TURBOTAX (7) and ACROBAT (8) are grouped in the taskbar together … Thus, the "Taxes" icon, involving (as described with reference to FIG. 3A) a user's home taxes project applications and files, includes two applications”].
As for independent claim 18, Nicholson and Matthews teach a device. Claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for independent claim 20, Nicholson and Matthews teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claim 18 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson et al. (US 2012/0227007 A1) in view of Matthews et al. (US 2006/0123353 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Desai et al. (US 2012/0084713 A1).
As for dependent claim 5, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 3, but Nicholson does not specifically teach the following limitations. However, Matthews teaches:
wherein the first gesture parameter comprises an end point position [(e.g. see Matthews paragraphs 0032, 0052) ”a cursor may be hovered over a location to display a thumbnail associated with a taskbar button … clicking on any location in the taskbar button”].
Nicholson and Matthews do not specifically teach wherein said determining, based on the first gesture parameter, the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label comprises: determining a label corresponding to an application floating window trigger area as the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label, in response to the end point position being in the predetermined application floating window trigger area and wherein said displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label comprises: displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label in a floating window. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Desai teaches:
wherein said determining, based on the first gesture parameter, the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label comprises: determining a label corresponding to an application floating window trigger area as the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label, in response to the end point position being in the predetermined application floating window trigger area and wherein said displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label comprises: displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label in a floating window [(e.g. see Desai paragraphs 0082, 0084 and Figs. 6D and 10) ”FIGS. 6A through 6E illustrate example previews for a taskbar group. In some embodiments, previews for the taskbar groups can be shown, for example, responsive to a user clicking on or hovering over an icon on the taskbar … FIG. 6C illustrates a taskbar 620 with a thumbnail preview 621 for taskbar group 622. Thumbnail preview 621 may include a title portion 623 having an icon and/or text (e.g., a portion of the window title). Thumbnail preview 621 may also include a snapshot portion 624 that provides a snapshot, or otherwise reflects the appearance, of content of the associated graphical window … A user may be able to select a particular preview entry or thumbnail to bring the corresponding window to the foreground of the desktop environment. Microsoft Windows and Mac OS are two examples among many operating systems that provide preview functionality”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Nicholson, Matthews and Desai, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein said determining, based on the first gesture parameter, the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label comprises: determining a label corresponding to an application floating window trigger area as the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label, in response to the end point position being in the predetermined application floating window trigger area and wherein said displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label comprises: displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label in a floating window, as taught by Desai, to the teachings of Nicholson and Matthews because presenting rendered static or dynamic thumbnails of those windows allows a user to intuitively select a window to make active (e.g. see Desai paragraph 0004).
As for dependent claim 10, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitations. However, Desai teaches:
further comprising: displaying at least one application floating window corresponding to the at least one label accommodated in the label aggregate, in response to the first gesture acting on the label aggregate in the current interface; displaying a target application floating window in the current interface when the first gesture corresponds to the target application floating window, in response to detecting the end of the first gesture, wherein the target application floating window is one of the at least one application floating window [(e.g. see Desai paragraphs 0082, 0084 and Figs. 6D and 10) ”FIGS. 6A through 6E illustrate example previews for a taskbar group. In some embodiments, previews for the taskbar groups can be shown, for example, responsive to a user clicking on or hovering over an icon on the taskbar … FIG. 6C illustrates a taskbar 620 with a thumbnail preview 621 for taskbar group 622. Thumbnail preview 621 may include a title portion 623 having an icon and/or text (e.g., a portion of the window title). Thumbnail preview 621 may also include a snapshot portion 624 that provides a snapshot, or otherwise reflects the appearance, of content of the associated graphical window … A user may be able to select a particular preview entry or thumbnail to bring the corresponding window to the foreground of the desktop environment. Microsoft Windows and Mac OS are two examples among many operating systems that provide preview functionality”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 5.
Claims 4, 8, 11, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson et al. (US 2012/0227007 A1) in view of Matthews et al. (US 2006/0123353 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Walkin et al. (US 2020/0326839 A1).
As for dependent claim 4, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 3 and Nicholson further teaches:
and wherein said displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label comprises: displaying a target application floating window corresponding to the target label [(e.g. see Nicholson paragraphs 0001, 0029, 0031) ”a user opening a plurality of applications (Application 1 and Application 2) in a plurality of views (WINDOW 1 and WINDOW 2) at 410 and 420, an embodiment detects the user switching between WINDOW 1 and WINDOW 2 at 430 … bringing different applications to the foreground … Left clicking on the word processing application's common taskbar icon shows the word processing application documents currently open in a popup view. Further, clicking on one of the open document's taskbar icon in the popup view causes that document to be brought to the foreground in the display”].
Nicholson and Matthews do not specifically teach wherein the first gesture parameter comprises a movement direction and a movement distance or wherein said determining, based on the first gesture parameter, the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label comprises: determining, from the at least one label, a label corresponding to the movement direction as a pre-selected label; and determining the pre-selected label as the target label selected by the first gesture from the at least one label, in response to the movement distance reaching a predetermined label selection distance threshold. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Walkin teaches:
wherein the first gesture parameter comprises a movement direction and a movement distance [(e.g. see Walkin paragraph 0205) ”When the contact 4008 is over a portion of the touch-screen that displays the first user interface of the first application (e.g., the maps application) and that is outside of a first predefined portion of the touch-screen (e.g., predefined area 4014 (also referred to as predefined region 4308 in FIG. 4D3, and Zone F in FIG. 4E8), within a threshold distance of a predefined side edge (e.g., right edge and/or left edge)) of the touch-screen, as shown in FIG. 4A5, the representation 4012 of the second application that is dragged by the contact 4008”].
wherein said determining, based on the first gesture parameter, the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label comprises: determining, from the at least one label, a label corresponding to the movement direction as a pre-selected label; and determining the pre-selected label as the target label selected by the first gesture from the at least one label, in response to the movement distance reaching a predetermined label selection distance threshold [(e.g. see Walkin paragraph 0205 and Figs. 4A5-4A6) ”In FIGS. 4A5 and 4A6, a representation of the second application (e.g., representation 4012) is dragged across the touch-screen in accordance with the movement of the input (e.g., movement of the contact 4008). When the contact 4008 is over a portion of the touch-screen that displays the first user interface of the first application (e.g., the maps application) and that is outside of a first predefined portion of the touch-screen (e.g., predefined area 4014 (also referred to as predefined region 4308 in FIG. 4D3, and Zone F in FIG. 4E8), within a threshold distance of a predefined side edge (e.g., right edge and/or left edge)) of the touch-screen, as shown in FIG. 4A5, the representation 4012 of the second application that is dragged by the contact 4008 has a first appearance (e.g., the same appearance as the original application icon 232), indicating that, if the input is ended (e.g., lift-off of the contact 4008 is detected) at the current location, the drag operation will be canceled and the display state shown prior to the detection of the input would be restored. When the contact 4008 is moved over a portion of the touch-screen that is within the first predefined portion of the touch-screen (e.g., predefined area 4014), the electronic device displays a visual feedback (e.g., the representation 4012 of the second application is elongated), as shown in FIG. 4A6, indicating that, if the input ends at the current location within the first predefined portion of the touch-screen, a window of the second application will be displayed with the first window of the first application in a respective concurrent-display configuration (e.g., a slide-over display configuration, with the window of the second application overlaying a portion of the first window of the first application)”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Nicholson, Matthews and Walkin, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the first gesture parameter comprises a movement direction and a movement distance and wherein said determining, based on the first gesture parameter, the target label selected by the user gesture from the at least one label comprises: determining, from the at least one label, a label corresponding to the movement direction as a pre-selected label; and determining the pre-selected label as the target label selected by the first gesture from the at least one label, in response to the movement distance reaching a predetermined label selection distance threshold, as taught by Walkin, to the teachings of Nicholson and Matthews because it improves user interface efficiency and reduces the number of inputs required to achieve a desired outcome (e.g. see Walkin paragraph 0031).
As for dependent claim 8, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitations. However, Walkin teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving a second gesture acting on a displayed application interface that is displayed in the current interface [(e.g. see Walkin paragraphs 0204, 0229 and Figs. 4A43-4A45) ”a first application window of a first application (e.g., a window 4002 of a maps application) is displayed on touch-screen 112 … illustrate that a swipe input by the contact 4066 is detected within a bottom edge region of the display, and the movement of the contact 4066 is substantially horizontal (e.g., includes no vertical movement, or a small amount of vertical movement as compared to the horizontal movement)”].
and after at least half of the displayed application interface is dragged outside a display screen of the electronic device under action of the second gesture, accommodating a label corresponding to the displayed application interface in the label aggregate, and switching an application corresponding to the displayed application interface to running in background [(e.g. see Walkin paragraphs 0190, 0204, 0229, 0237, 0326 and Figs. 4A43-4A45 and Fig. 4B1) ”illustrate that a swipe input by the contact 4066 is detected within a bottom edge region of the display, and the movement of the contact 4066 is substantially horizontal (e.g., includes no vertical movement, or a small amount of vertical movement as compared to the horizontal movement). In response to the edge swipe input, and in accordance with a determination that the edge swipe input meets application-switching criteria (e.g., meets the distance and speed criteria of the application-switching criteria), the window 4002 is dragged off the screen, and replaced by a window 4034 that was the last displayed full-screen window prior to the window 4002. As shown in FIGS. 4A43-4A45, while the background full-screen window is changed … Icon 236 for map module 154, labeled “Maps” … the dock includes an application icon of the currently displayed application (e.g., the maps application) and one or more most recently displayed applications … open windows saved in memory, as “open” windows that can be recalled to the screen with the saved last displayed state … a single window (e.g., only one recently open window is saved in memory”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 4B1, the Maps icon (i.e. recently displayed application) is added to the dock when the map application window is dragged off screen and placed into background memory.
and the method further comprises: determining a movement distance of the second gesture; generating the label corresponding to the displayed application interface based on the displayed application interface, in response to the movement distance of the second gesture exceeding a predetermined displacement distance [(e.g. see Walkin paragraphs 0190, 0229 and Figs. 4A43-4A46 and 4B1) ”illustrate that a swipe input by the contact 4066 is detected within a bottom edge region of the display, and the movement of the contact 4066 is substantially horizontal (e.g., includes no vertical movement, or a small amount of vertical movement as compared to the horizontal movement). In response to the edge swipe input, and in accordance with a determination that the edge swipe input meets application-switching criteria (e.g., meets the distance and speed criteria of the application-switching criteria), the window 4002 is dragged off the screen, and replaced by a window 4034 that was the last displayed full-screen window prior to the window 4002 … Icon 236 for map module 154, labeled “Maps””]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 4B1, the Maps icon is added to the dock when the map application is dragged off screen.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 4.
As for dependent claim 11, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Walkin teaches:
further comprising: displaying an application notification message of an application corresponding to at least one the label in a notification area associated with the at least one label [(e.g. see Walkin paragraphs 0173, 0204 and Fig. 4A3) ” Icon 216 for telephone module 138, labeled “Phone,” which optionally includes an indicator 214 of the number of missed calls or voicemail messages … Icon 218 for email client module 140, labeled “Mail,” which optionally includes an indicator 210 of the number of unread emails … as shown in FIGS. 4A1-4A2. In response to detecting the input that satisfies the dock-display criteria, the dock 4006 is displayed overlaying the first application window of the first application (e.g., window 4002). The dock 4006 includes a plurality of application icons, corresponding to different applications (e.g., icon 216 for a telephony application, icon 218 for an email application, icon 220 for a browser application, and icon 232 for an online video application)”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 4.
As for dependent claim 14, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 3, but do not specifically teach the following limitations. However, Walkin teaches:
wherein the first gesture parameter comprises an end point position or a gesture pause time length; wherein the method further comprises: determining a standard interface corresponding to an application of the target label, in response to the end point position being in a predetermined standard interface trigger area or the gesture pause time length reaching a predetermined standard interface time length threshold and wherein said displaying the target application interface corresponding to the target label comprises: displaying the standard interface in full screen [(e.g. see Walkin paragraphs 0160, 0237, 0241 and Fig. 4B5) ”a set of intensity samples collected during a predetermined time period (e.g., 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10 seconds) relative to a predefined event (e.g., after detecting the contact, prior to detecting liftoff of the contact, before or after detecting a start of movement of the contact, prior to detecting an end of the contact, before or after detecting an increase in intensity of the contact, and/or before or after detecting a decrease in intensity of the contact) … In response to detecting the input, and in accordance with a determination that the input meets selection criteria (e.g., the input meets the criteria (e.g., location and time criteria) for detecting a tap input on the application icon) … an input by a contact 4120 is detected on the application icon 224 for the messages application, while the full-screen window 4102 of the email application is displayed. In accordance with a determination that the input by the contact 4120 meets the first criteria (e.g., the input is a tap input), the device determines whether the application icon 224 and the currently displayed window 4102 correspond to the same application. In accordance with a determination that the application icon 224 and the currently displayed window 4102 do not correspond to the same application, the device ceases to display the full-screen window 4102 and displays the full-screen window 4122 (e.g., a default window of the messages application (e.g., the last displayed full-screen window of the messages application)) that corresponds to the messages application”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 4.
As for dependent claim 16, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Walkin teaches:
further comprising: dragging the label aggregate to an aggregate fixing position corresponding to an aggregate dragging operation, in response to the aggregate dragging operation acting on the label aggregate in the current interface [(e.g. see Walkin paragraph 0204 and Figs. 4A1-4A3) ”An input that satisfies dock-display criteria (e.g., an upward edge swipe input by a contact 4004) is detected on touch-screen 112 (e.g., near the bottom edge portion of the touch-screen 112), as shown in FIGS. 4A1-4A2. In response to detecting the input that satisfies the dock-display criteria, the dock 4006 is displayed overlaying the first application window of the first application (e.g., window 4002) … In some embodiments, the dock is temporarily removed from the display in response to an input that meets dock-dismissal criteria (e.g., a downward swipe gesture on the dock that moves toward the bottom edge of the touch-screen)”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 4.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson et al. (US 2012/0227007 A1) in view of Matthews et al. (US 2006/0123353 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pallakoff (US 2012/0299975 A1).
As for dependent claim 25, Nicholson and Matthews teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach further comprising: blurring the current interface to highlight the at least one label while displaying the at least one label accommodated in the label aggregate. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Pallakoff teaches:
further comprising: blurring the current interface to highlight the at least one label while displaying the at least one label accommodated in the label aggregate [(e.g. see Pallakoff paragraphs 0003, 0009, 0030 and Figs. 2 and 6) ” the occluding along the border and in the background is often achieved with an alpha mask, that serves to darken/obscure the background window, drawing the user's attention to the foreground dialog … As shown in FIG. 2, a dialog box 110 is displayed on the EPD device 100 with areas that are selectable by the user. At the same time as the dialog box 110 is displayed, the previous image, which now appears as a background image, is darkened by a veil 120 in order to highlight the dialog box 110 to the user … The end result of the veiling process of the system and method the present invention is illustrated in FIG. 6. As shown in FIG. 6, the previous image displayed in the EPD device 200 appears darker, with a veil 270 drawn over it, while the active dialog box 280 is drawn without the veil to highlight the portions selectable by the user on the user interface displayed on the EPD device 200. The visual appearance resulting from the checkered process of the present invention illustrated in FIG. 6 is similar to the prior art result illustrated in FIG. 2”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Nicholson, Matthews and Pallakoff, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add further comprising: blurring the current interface to highlight the at least one label while displaying the at least one label accommodated in the label aggregate, as taught by Pallakoff, to the teachings of Nicholson and Matthews because obscuring the background helps users to focus on the new foreground elements that have just appeared over the background, and lets the user know that the background elements are not active while the new foreground elements are active and selectable (e.g. see Pallakoff paragraphs 0003, 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 01 September 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“Nicholson does not disclose the way of displaying, in the current interface, an application interface corresponding to a single label in a floating window when the single label is accommodated in the label aggregate, as defined in amended claim 1 … Walkin does not make up for the deficiency of Nicholson … Desai does not make up for the deficiency of Nicholson and Walkin.” (Pages 12-15).].
The argument described above, in paragraph number 12, with respect to the newly added limitations to the independent claims has been considered, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 5,757,371 issued to Oran et al. on 26 May 1998. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20-25 (e.g. restoring an application window by applying input to a taskbar label).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights