DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response received 03/23/2026 for 18291474. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are presented.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new and/or updated citations used in the current rejection of record under Tao in view of Kanai in response to the newly amended limitations, including at least detecting input corresponding to an organizational tool or object and translating, rotating, or scaling the organizational tool and attached objects or the object as disclosed in Davidson [Figs. 1A-1B, 1E-1H, para 0045-0048, 0056, 0060-0063].
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., where a thumbnail is "a single minimized application window within a mobile notification bar" [pg. 13:2] and "render[s] actual application window content at reduced scale" [pgs. 14:2-15:1]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the broadest reasonable interpretation of thumbnail includes a miniature computer graphic. Kanai discloses a minimization process displaying a minimized application in a task bar as an icon with application name [Figs. 5A-5B, para 0038-0040], therefore Kanai discloses "a thumbnail of the first window".
In response to applicant's argument that Tao and Ording are nonanalogous art [pgs. 13:3-14:1], it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the claimed invention is in the field of endeavor of terminal device desktop management [Specification, para 0002] as consistent with Tao ["terminal display", para 0002, 0004], Kanai ["operating system environment having a WINDOWS based GUI", para 0037], and Ording ["computing device", para 0002], thus the cited references are analogous art.
In response to Applicant's arguments that combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art [pgs. 14:2-15:1], "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) [MPEP 2143]. In this case, neither discredit of the combination, nor destruction of the reference has been found because the prior art do not discredit or render inoperative other embodiments. "Although statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art device require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a characteristic that weighs against obviousness of a more complicated device with added function." In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1344, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 1998) [see MPEP 2143.01(V)].
With respect to Applicant's arguments that the conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning [pg. 15:2], "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Claim 1 remains rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "determining whether to display the first window in the first region or the second region, wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the first region responsive to the first window being the window of the notification center, and wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the second region responsive to the first window being the window of the application" (claims 1, 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the function steps "wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the first region responsive to the first window being the window of the notification center" and "wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the second region responsive to the first window being the window of the application" which are unclear as the conditions "responsive to the first window being the window of the notification center" and "responsive to the first window being the window of the application" lack antecedent basis in the precedent condition "determining whether to display the first window in the first region or the second region".
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected as being indefinite for failing to remedy the deficiencies of parent claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11-14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (US 20200278775 A1) in view of Kanai (US 20100211906 A1).
As to claim 1, Tao discloses a method, comprising:
detecting a first operation performed by a user on a first window, wherein the first operation is to minimize the first window, the first window is a window of an application or a window of a notification center, and an icon of a first application corresponding to the first window is displayed in a first taskbar [Figs. 5A-5B, para 0135, 0137, 0194, detect tap operation performed by user to minimize display window (read: first window) of application to application icon corresponding to minimized window on status bar (read: first taskbar)];
minimizing the first window into the icon of the first application in response to the first operation [Figs. 5A-5B, para 0137, 0194, minimize window to minimization application icon based on tap operation];
detecting a second operation performed by the user on the first taskbar, wherein the second operation is to expand the first taskbar [Figs. 6A-6B, 12, para 0138, 0141, detect slide operation (read: second operation) performed by user on status bar to display drop-down menu of status bar, where drop-down includes selectable status bar application and is consistent with broadest reasonable interpretation of expanded as including functional content as described in Applicant's specification (para 00127)]; and
expanding the first taskbar in response to the second operation, to obtain a second taskbar, wherein the second taskbar comprises separate first and second regions, and wherein the second taskbar comprises a thumbnail [] [Figs. 6B-7B, para 0138-0139, display drop-down menu of status bar (read: second taskbar) displaying application programs (read: first region) including application icon (read: thumbnail) of minimized window and notification messages (read: second region)].
However, Tao does not specifically disclose a thumbnail of the first window; and determining whether to display the first window in the first region or the second region.
Kanai discloses a thumbnail of the first window [Figs. 3-5B, para 0038-0040, display minimized application (read: thumbnail) as an icon with application name]; and determining whether to display the first window in the first region or the second region [para 0038, 0046, determine to store window in application or system tray of task bar].
Tao and Kanai are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of terminal graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thumbnail as disclosed by Tao with the thumbnail of the first window as disclosed by Kanai with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tao as described above to enjoy effective operation in an environment running the plural applications [Kanai, para 0031].
While Tao does not teach "wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the first region responsive to the first window being the window of the notification center, and wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the second region responsive to the first window being the window of the application", note one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met, thus claim scope does not require the contingent limitations "wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the first region" or "wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the second region" to be performed if the conditions "responsive to the first window being the window of the notification center" or "responsive to the first window being the window of the application" are not met given the conditional precedent "determining whether to display the first window in the first region or the second region" [see MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Nevertheless, in an effort to advance compact prosecution, Kanai teaches wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the first region responsive to the first window being the window of the notification center, and wherein the thumbnail of the first window is displayed in the second region responsive to the first window being the window of the application [Figs. 3-5B, para 0038-0040, 0045-0046, display minimized window in system tray (read: first region) of task bar based on determining to store window in system tray (read: notification center) an display minimized window with applications (read: second region) of task bar based on determining to store window as running application].
As to claim 2, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein before detecting the first operation, the method further comprises:
detecting a third operation performed by the user on the first window, wherein the third operation is to obtain function buttons of maximize, minimize, and close [Figs. 3A-3B, para 0135, detect slide operation (read: third operation) performed by user on window to display window including full screen, minimize, and close buttons]; and
displaying the function buttons of maximize, minimize, and close in a region of the first window in response to the third operation [Fig. 3B, para 0135, display window user interface (read: region) including full screen, minimize, and close buttons based on slide operation].
As to claim 3, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
the first taskbar further comprises a function button of a control center [Fig. 5B, para 0137, 0194, status bar displays minimization icon (read: function button) of settings application (read: control center)],
the second taskbar comprises a first region and a second region, a [] thumbnail of the notification center and the function button of the control center are displayed in the first region, and a [] thumbnail of the application is displayed in the second region [Figs. 6A-6B, para 0132, 0137-0138, status bar drop-down menu includes status bar (read: first region) displaying notification message and minimization icon and menu (read: second region) displaying application icon (read: thumbnail) of minimize application window].
However, Tao does not specifically disclose wherein "a [] thumbnail of the notification center" is "a window thumbnail of the notification center" and "a [] thumbnail of the application" is "a window thumbnail of the application".
Kanai discloses a window thumbnail of the notification center and a window thumbnail of the application [Fig. 5A-5B, para 0039-0041, display minimized window in system tray of task bar or display minimized window with applications in task bar].
Tao and Kanai are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of desktop user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thumbnail of the notification center and thumbnail of the application as disclosed by Tao with the window thumbnail of the notification center and the window thumbnail of the application as disclosed by Kanai with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tao as described above to enjoy effective operation in an environment running the plural applications [Kanai, para 0031].
As to claim 7, Tao discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the second region further comprises a[nother] thumbnail [], … a second application [Figs. 6A, 12, para 0138, 0141, status bar menu displays application icon of browser application], the method further comprising:
detecting a sixth operation performed by the user on the thumbnail [], wherein the sixth operation is to make the thumbnail [] and the [other] thumbnail [] form a window group [Fig. 12, para 0141, detect tap operation (read: sixth operation) performed by user to display application interfaces in multi-window user interface (read: window group)];
making the thumbnail the thumbnail [] and the [other] thumbnail [] form the window group in response to the sixth operation [Fig. 13A, para 0141, display multi-window user interface including application icon interfaces based on tap operation];
detecting an operation of zooming in, zooming out, or moving the window group by the user [para 0141, user selects to display multi-window user interface in specific arrangement manner]; and
zooming in, zooming out, or moving the window group in response to the operation of zooming in, zooming out, or moving the window group by the user [para 0141, display multi-window user interface in specific arrangement manner based on user selection].
However, Tao does not specifically disclose wherein "a[nother thumbnail []" is "a thumbnail of a second window", the second window corresponds to a second application, and "the [other] thumbnail []" is "the thumbnail of a second window".
Kanai discloses a thumbnail of a second window, wherein the second window corresponds to a second application, and the thumbnail of a second window [Figs. 5A-5B, para 0039-0040, display multiple minimized applications of respective running applications in task bar].
Tao and Kanai are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of desktop user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thumbnails as disclosed by Tao with the thumbnail of a second window corresponding to a second application as disclosed by Kanai with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tao as described above to enjoy effective operation in an environment running the plural applications [Kanai, para 0031].
As to claim 11, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a ninth operation performed by the user on the second taskbar, wherein the ninth operation is to display an interface of an information center [Figs. 7A-7B, para 0139, detect slide operation (read: ninth operation) performed by user in status bar drop-down menu to display user interface of notification messages (read: information center)]; and
displaying the interface of the information center in response to the ninth operation [Fig. 7B, para 0139, display notification user interface of based on user slide operation].
As to claim 12, Tao and Kanai, combined at least for the reasons above, Tao discloses a terminal device, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors [Fig. 1A, para 0106, 0108, phone includes processor and memory storing data performed by processor], cause the terminal device to be configured to: perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 13-14, 18, and 20, Tao, Kanai, and Roth, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the terminal device of claim 14, comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 2-3, 7, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5-6, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao and Kanai as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ording et al. (US 20120246596 A1).
As to claim 5, Tao discloses the method of claim 3.
However, Tao and Kanai do not specifically disclose detecting a fourth operation performed by the user on the second region, wherein the fourth operation is to move a display position of the window thumbnail of the application in the second region; and moving the display position of the window thumbnail of the application in the second region in response to the fourth operation.
Ording discloses:
detecting a fourth operation performed by the user on the second region, wherein the fourth operation is to move a display position of the window thumbnail of the application in the second region [Figs. 1-2A, para 0035, 0044-0045, user input (read: fourth operation) dragging space including miniaturized depiction of application window from position in bridge (read: second region)]; and
moving the display position of the window thumbnail of the application in the second region in response to the fourth operation [Fig. 2A, para 0044-0045, move position of space including miniaturized depiction of application window to target area in bridge based on user input].
Tao, Kanai, and Ording are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of desktop user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second region as disclosed by Tao and Kanai with the fourth operation to move the window thumbnail as disclosed by Ording with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tao and Kanai as described above to perform actions according to user preference [Ording, para 0044].
As to claim 6, Tao discloses the method of claim 3.
However, Tao and Kani do not specifically disclose detecting a fifth operation performed by the user on the second region, wherein the fifth operation is to zoom in or out the window thumbnail of the application in the second region; and zooming in or out the window thumbnail of the application in the second region in response to the fifth operation.
Ording discloses:
detecting a fifth operation performed by the user on the second region, wherein the fifth operation is to zoom in or out the window thumbnail of the application in the second region [Figs. 4A-5B, para 0045, 0073-0074, user input (read: fifth operation) sliding over space in bridge (read: second region) to trigger animation enlarging (read: zoom in) space including miniaturized depiction of application window in bridge]; and
zooming in or out the window thumbnail of the application in the second region in response to the fifth operation [Figs. 4A-5B, para 0045, 0073-0074, enlarge space including miniaturized depiction of application window in bridge based on user input].
Tao, Kanai, and Ording are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of desktop user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second region as disclosed by Tao and Kanai with the fifth operation to zoom in or out a window thumbnail as disclosed by Ording with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tao and Kanai as described above to perform actions according to user preference [Ording, para 0044].
As to claims 15 and 16, Tao, Kanai, and Ording, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the terminal device of claim 14 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 5 and 6, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5-6, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao and Kanai as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ording et al. (US 20120246596 A1).
Claims 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao and Kanai in view of Roth (US 20120169768 A1).
As to claim 8, Tao discloses the method of claim 7.
However, Tao and Kanai do not specifically disclose detecting an operation to change a size of the thumbnail of the first window by the user; and adjusting the size of the thumbnail of the first window in response to the operation to change the size of the thumbnail of the first window by the user, and adaptively adjusting a size of the thumbnail of the second window, to obtain an adjusted window group, wherein the adjusted window group comprises an adjusted thumbnail of the first window and an adjusted thumbnail of the second window, and a sum of a size of the adjusted thumbnail of the first window and a size of the adjusted thumbnail of the second window is equal to a size of the window group.
Roth discloses:
detecting an operation to change a size of the thumbnail of the first window by the user [Fig. 8A, para 0112, user touch input window thumbnail]; and
adjusting the size of the thumbnail of the first window in response to the operation to change the size of the thumbnail of the first window by the user, and adaptively adjusting a size of the thumbnail of the second window, to obtain an adjusted window group, wherein the adjusted window group comprises an adjusted thumbnail of the first window and an adjusted thumbnail of the second window, and a sum of a size of the adjusted thumbnail of the first window and a size of the adjusted thumbnail of the second window is equal to a size of the window group [Figs. 8B-8C, para 0025, 0111-0112, combine thumbnail of application lens (read: first window) with thumbnail of another application lens (read: second window) into new thumbnail of lens (read: adjusted window group), also note size of combining selected thumbnails equals a size of newly combined thumbnail lens].
Tao, Kanai, and Roth are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of terminal graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window thumbnails as disclosed by Tao and Kanai with the adjusted thumbnail as disclosed by Roth with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Tao and Kanai as described above to perform lens management operations [Roth, para 0102].
As to claim 19, Tao, Kanai, and Roth, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the terminal device of claim 18 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 8 and is rejected. under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dascola et al. (US 20200348822 A1) generally discloses a notification center user interface.
Czerwinski et al. (US 20040066414 A1) generally discloses a taskbar user interface displaying application window thumbnails.
Song et al. (US 11487406 B1) generally discloses adjusting a size of a first window and second window to obtain an adjusted window group with a size equal to a sum of the first window and second window.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights