DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/09/2025 has been entered. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
The amended screen rotation manager is "responsible for screen rotation management of the system, and is responsible for listening to a sensor event, to implement screen rotation decision management, screen rotation animation execution, screen rotation notification, and the like." Support can also be found at paragraphs [0070] - [0074] of the application as originally filed.
Withdrawal of the means-plus-function claim interpretation is respectfully requested.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. The phrase “screen rotation manager” still references a generic placeholder for some device or module that performs the function of managing screen rotation. This phrase does not recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. As a result, the amended language does not appear to overcome interpretation under 112(f). Additionally, rejections of under 112(a) and 112(b) follow due to a lack of finding a corresponding structure and algorithmic flowchart for the claimed manager. For overcoming interpretation under 112(f), the Examiner suggests that instead of referring to “managers” for performing claimed functions, the claim refer to the electronic device, or a corresponding processor. This would tie the function to a specific structure for performing the function.
Applicant argues that:
Regardng claim 2, Applicant respectfully submits that "a current holding direction" of the electronic device is not referring to the holding direction of the electronic device in claim 1. The claim language of claim 2 clearly states that "based on detecting that the holding direction of the electronic device changes, ..." which means the holding direction of the electronic device is changed to a current holding direction of the electronic device. Thus, "a current holding direction" of the electronic device does not have any antecedent basis ambiguity as alleged by the Office action.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. It is not clear what time “current” is in the claim, and so whether the holding direction is the same as the “current” holding direction is not clear. The Examiner suggests amending “current holding direction” to “changed holding direction” or similar based on Applicant’s arguments above to overcome the rejection under 112(b) directed to this claim limitation.
Applicant argues that:
Further, the limitation "a window display direction of the first target application" in claim 2 is not referring to any of the phrases such as "a second interface of a second application" or "a preset window direction of the second interface" as suggested by the Office action. That "the first target application comprises the second application" which is introduced in claim 1 does not impact the antecedent basis of the limitation "a window display direction" of the first target application. According to paragraph [0092] of the application, "[t]he first target application is an application that has a display layer on a display interface of the current tablet, for example, a status bar, another floating window, or another screen split application. Further, the first target application may alternatively be configured by a system side. Specifically, a whitelist may be preset by the system side." Thus, "a window display direction" of the first target application is newly introduced in claim 2 and does not have antecedent basis issues.
The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s clarification. The fact that the “first target application” may have a window display direction that is not the same as the second application does not prevent the first target application from having “a window display direction” in the form of the “a preset window direction of the second interface” as recited in claim 1. The reason for this is that the “first target application comprises the second application”. As a result, it is not clear whether the “a window display direction” of claim 2 corresponds to the “a preset window direction of the second interface” of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection under 112(b) for antecedent ambiguity is maintained.
Applicant argues that:
Contrary to Jeong, in amended claim 10, upon a detection of an operation of closing the second interface by a user, and also upon determining that the window direction of the first interface is different from the holding direction of the electronic device, a display window of the first interface is rotated first, and then the second interface is closed and the first interface is displayed.
The examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Jeong updates the screen rotation as the holding direction is changed (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, Fig. 12 with ¶0115, ¶0120-¶0123, ¶0132-¶0135, ¶0153). This is additionally disclosed in the Abstract of Jeong. This behavior occurs at any time, including times prior to the changing of which applications are loaded. Hill, newly cited below, discloses returning to the first application interface in response to closing the second application (Hill, Fig. 6 with ¶0043). This step can occur after a rotation orientation is changed.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a second application” and should apparently recite “a second application of the plurality of applications”. Similarly for claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “screen rotation manager” recited in claims 4-6, 11-13, and 16-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-6, 11-13, and 16-18 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.
Claim 2 introduces “a current holding direction”. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, introduces “a holding direction”. It is unclear whether the current holding direction is referring to the holding direction. As a result of this antecedent basis ambiguity, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Similarly for claims 3 and 15.
Claim 2 introduces “a window display direction of the first target application”. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, introduces “a second interface of a second application”, “a preset window direction of the second interface”, and “the first target application comprises the second application”. It is therefore unclear whether the window display direction of the first target application is referring to the preset window direction of the second interface, or is introducing a new window direction. As a result of this antecedent basis ambiguity, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Similarly for claims 3 and 15.
Claim limitations “screen rotation manager” recited in claims 4-6, 11-13, and 16-18 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Additionally, the algorithm for performing the full function recited following each of the above modules could not be found, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite. “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function of a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation in a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or the sixth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, "the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention" as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112].” - MPEP 2161.01(I).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 26 and 29 are rejected for dependency on 25 and 28 respectively.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitations “screen rotation manager” recited in claims 4-6, 11-13, and 16-18 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Additionally, the algorithm for performing the full function recited following each of the above modules could not be found. “[T]he algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that the function must be described in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing” - MPEP 2161.01(I).
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Jeong et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0139576), referred to as Jeong herein [previously cited].
Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0011630), referred to as Kim herein [previously cited].
Ning et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0310627), referred to as Ning herein [previously cited].
Ignaszewski et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0380935), referred to as Ignaszewski herein [previously cited].
Chaudhri et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0165006), referred to as Chaudhri herein [previously cited].
Hill et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0297400), referred to as Hill herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Ning in further view of Hill.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a screen rotation control method, applied to an electronic device having a display, wherein the method comprises (Jeong, Abstract – screen rotation control for an electronic device):
displaying a first interface of a first application of a plurality of applications, wherein a window direction of the first interface is the same as a holding direction of the electronic device (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, and 8 with ¶0130, ¶0140 – background window (first application) is displayed in portrait orientation while the orientation of the device is in portrait or is displayed in landscape while the orientation of the device is in landscape); and
based on detecting an operation of opening a second interface of a second application by using the first interface (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, and 8 with ¶0130, ¶0137-¶0140 - pop-up window (second application) open operation causes the window to be open and interface displayed in portrait mode. The device is rotated to landscape mode, and the background window is switched rotated to landscape Pop-up window is executed according to the user’s selection), and
based on determining that a preset window direction of the second interface is different from the holding direction of the electronic device, displaying an interface of a first target application in the preset window direction of the second interface (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, 8 with ¶0116, ¶0130-¶0133, ¶0137-¶0140 – when the pop-up window (second application, first target application) has a pre-set orientation (portrait), the orientation is maintained despite being different from the device orientation), and
keeping a window direction of a second target application unchanged (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, 8 with ¶0116, ¶0130-¶0133, ¶0137-¶0140 – the background window is maintained in landscape. Fig. 14 with operation 1440 and ¶0178 – when orientation is maintained, the layout is maintained),
wherein the first target application comprises the second application, and the second target application comprises the first application, and the second interface of the second application is displayed in window (second application, first target application) has a pre-set orientation, the background application (first application, second target application) does not have a pre-set orientation and is maintained at the device orientation direction); and
However, Jeong appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ning discloses popup window and window management based on device orientation (Ning, Abstract with ¶0073, ¶0080), including
the second interface of the second application is displayed in full screen (Ning, Fig. 17 with ¶0104 – the second application floating window can be displayed in full screen), and
based on detecting the operation of closing the second application, displaying the first interface of the first application (Ning, Figs. 11 and 16 with ¶0097-¶0100 – canceling the second application results in showing the background application in the same orientation. ¶0093 – starting applications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the application interfaces of Jeong to include the displaying the second application in full screen, and returning to the first application interface in response to cancelling the second application based on the teachings of Ning. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to have greater control over application behavior, and allow users access interact with applications without losing access to the previous foreground application (Ning, ¶0112).
However, Jeong as modified appears not to expressly disclose that closing the second application returns to the first application when the second application is displayed in full screen. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hill discloses managing multiple software interfaces, including split or picture-in-picture modes (Hill, ¶0009 and ¶0023), including
closing the second application returns to the first application when the second application is displayed in full screen (Hill, Fig. 6 with ¶0043 – second application (web browser application) is displayed in full screen. When a reverse trigger is detected, the web browser is closed and the first application (media player) is shown in full screen. ¶0024, ¶0033 – reverse trigger event can be a gesture which closes the second application)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the full screen second application of Jeong as modified to include returning to the first application upon closure based on the teachings of Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to interact more easily with the second application, across greater screen real estate, while maintaining access to, and being able to easily transition back to, the previous foreground application.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein after the displaying the interface of the first target application in the preset window direction of the second interface, and keeping the window direction of the second target application unchanged, the method further comprises: based on detecting that the holding direction of the electronic device changes, determining whether a window display direction of the first target application is the same as a current holding direction of the electronic device; and based on that the window display direction of the first target application is the same as the current holding direction of the electronic device, updating a window direction of an application other than the first target application on the electronic device, so that the window direction of the application other than the first target application is the same as the current holding direction of the electronic device (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, 8, 14 with ¶0116, ¶0130-¶0133, ¶0137-¶0140, ¶0178-¶0179 – returning the device to portrait mode results in changing the background application to portrait orientation).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein based on detecting the operation of opening the second interface of the second application by using the first interface, and based on determining that the preset window direction of the second interface is different from the holding direction of the electronic device, the displaying the interface of the first target application in the preset window direction of the second interface, and keeping the window direction of the second target application unchanged comprises: obtaining the preset window direction of the second interface of the second application by using an activity manager of the electronic device, and based on the preset window direction being different from the holding direction of the electronic device, triggering, by the activity manager, a screen rotation manager to perform a screen rotation operation on a display window corresponding to the first target application (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, ¶0132-¶0135 – pop-up window is rotated 90 degrees to maintain the vertically fixed layout. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 4 above, and further discloses wherein the triggering, by the activity manager, the screen rotation manager to perform the screen rotation operation on the display window corresponding to the first target application comprises: adjusting, based on the preset window direction of the second interface, width information, height information, and direction information of display content that are of the display window corresponding to the first target application, so that a window direction of the display window corresponding to the first target application is the same as the preset window direction of the second interface (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, Fig. 12 with ¶0115, ¶0132-¶0135, ¶0153 – pop-up window is rotated 90 degrees and adjusted in size and display direction on the screen to maintain the vertically fixed layout. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 4 above, and further discloses after the triggering, by the activity manager, the screen rotation manager to perform the screen rotation operation on the display window corresponding to the first target application, the method further comprises: sending, by the activity manager, a resource update event to the first target application, to trigger the first target application to refresh, based on the resource update event, a window layout corresponding to the first target application (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, Fig. 12 with ¶0115, ¶0132-¶0135, ¶0153 – pop-up window is rotated 90 degrees and adjusted in size and display direction on the screen to maintain the vertically fixed layout. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first target application further comprises a background application whose prompt window is allowed to pop up (Jeong, ¶0092, ¶0169 – pop-up window. Ning, Fig. 9-10 with ¶0063-¶0066 – second application programs can be launched over top of the first interface. The second applications can be applications in a background running state that are popped up in the foreground).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first application is a desktop application (Jeong, Fig. 9 with ¶0084 – home application).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong discloses a screen rotation control method, applied to an electronic device having a display, wherein the method comprises (Jeong, Abstract – screen rotation control for an electronic device):
displaying a first interface of a first application of a plurality of applications, wherein a window direction of the first interface is the same as a holding direction of the electronic device (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, and 8 with ¶0130, ¶0140 – background window (first application) is displayed in portrait orientation while the orientation of the device is in portrait or landscape while the orientation of the device is in landscape);
based on detecting an operation of opening a second interface of the first application by using the first interface of the first application (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, and 8 with ¶0130, ¶0137-¶0140 - pop-up window (second application) open operation causes the window to be open and interface displayed in portrait mode. The device is rotated to landscape mode, and the background window is switched rotated to landscape. Pop-up window is executed according to the user’s selection), and
based on determining that a preset window direction of the second interface is different from the holding direction of the electronic device, displaying the second interface in
¶0132-¶0135, ¶0153 – Elements 610 and 630 show adjusted direction, width, and height of the internet browser. See also Element 1230. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager).
However, Jeong appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ning discloses popup window and window management based on device orientation (Ning, Abstract with ¶0073, ¶0080), including
the second interface of the second application is displayed in full screen (Ning, Fig. 17 with ¶0104 – the second application floating window can be displayed in full screen), and
based on detecting the operation of closing the second application, displaying the first interface of the first application (Ning, Figs. 11 and 16 with ¶0097-¶0100 – canceling the second application results in showing the background application in the same orientation. ¶0093 – starting applications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the application interfaces of Jeong to include the displaying the second application in full screen, and returning to the first application interface in response to cancelling the second application based on the teachings of Ning. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to have greater control over application behavior, and allow users access interact with applications without losing access to the previous foreground application (Ning, ¶0112).
However, Jeong as modified appears not to expressly disclose that closing the second application returns to the first application when the second application is displayed in full screen. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hill discloses managing multiple software interfaces, including split or picture-in-picture modes (Hill, ¶0009 and ¶0023), including
closing the second application returns to the first application when the second application is displayed in full screen (Hill, Fig. 6 with ¶0043 – second application (web browser application) is displayed in full screen. When a reverse trigger is detected, the web browser is closed and the first application (media player) is shown in full screen. ¶0024, ¶0033 – reverse trigger event can be a gesture which closes the second application)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the full screen second application of Jeong as modified to include returning to the first application upon closure based on the teachings of Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to interact more easily with the second application, across greater screen real estate, while maintaining access to, and being able to easily transition back to, the previous foreground application.
Regarding claim 14, Jeong as modified discloses an electronic device comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium which contains computer-executable instructions; wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to enable the electronic device to perform operations comprising (Jeong, Abstract – screen rotation control for an electronic device. Abstract and Fig. 4 with ¶0097-¶0104 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
displaying a first interface of a first application of a plurality of applications, wherein a window direction of the first interface is the same as a holding direction of the electronic device (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, and 8 with ¶0130, ¶0140 – background window (first application) is displayed in portrait orientation while the orientation of the device is in portrait or landscape while the orientation of the device is in landscape);
based on detecting an operation of opening a second interface of a second application by using the first interface (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, and 8 with ¶0130, ¶0137-¶0140 - pop-up window (second application) open operation causes the window to be open and interface displayed in portrait mode. The device is rotated to landscape mode, and the background window is switched rotated to landscape. Pop-up window is executed according to the user’s selection), and
determining that a preset window direction of the second interface is different from the holding direction of the electronic device, displaying an interface of a first target application in the preset window direction of the second interface (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, 8 with ¶0116, ¶0130-¶0133, ¶0137-¶0140 – when the pop-up window (second application, first target application) has a pre-set orientation (portrait), the orientation is maintained despite being different from the device orientation), and
keeping a window direction of a second target application unchanged (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, 8 with ¶0116, ¶0130-¶0133, ¶0137-¶0140 – the background window is maintained in landscape. Fig. 14 with operation 1440 and ¶0178 – when orientation is maintained, the layout is maintained),
wherein the first target application comprises the second application, and the second target application comprises the first application, and the second interface of the second application is displayed in
However, Jeong appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ning discloses popup window and window management based on device orientation (Ning, Abstract with ¶0073, ¶0080), including
the second interface of the second application is displayed in full screen (Ning, Fig. 17 with ¶0104 – the second application floating window can be displayed in full screen), and
based on detecting the operation of closing the second application, displaying the first interface of the first application (Ning, Figs. 11 and 16 with ¶0097-¶0100 – canceling the second application results in showing the background application in the same orientation. ¶0093 – starting applications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the application interfaces of Jeong to include the displaying the second application in full screen, and returning to the first application interface in response to cancelling the second application based on the teachings of Ning. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to have greater control over application behavior, and allow users access interact with applications without losing access to the previous foreground application (Ning, ¶0112).
However, Jeong as modified appears not to expressly disclose that closing the second application returns to the first application when the second application is displayed in full screen. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hill discloses managing multiple software interfaces, including split or picture-in-picture modes (Hill, ¶0009 and ¶0023), including
closing the second application returns to the first application when the second application is displayed in full screen (Hill, Fig. 6 with ¶0043 – second application (web browser application) is displayed in full screen. When a reverse trigger is detected, the web browser is closed and the first application (media player) is shown in full screen. ¶0024, ¶0033 – reverse trigger event can be a gesture which closes the second application)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the full screen second application of Jeong as modified to include returning to the first application upon closure based on the teachings of Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to interact more easily with the second application, across greater screen real estate, while maintaining access to, and being able to easily transition back to, the previous foreground application.
Regarding claim 15, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 14 above, and further discloses wherein after the displaying the interface of the first target application in the preset window direction of the second interface, and keeping the window direction of the second target application unchanged, the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to enable the electronic device to perform operations comprising: based on detecting that the holding direction of the electronic device changes, determining whether a window display direction of the first target application is the same as a current holding direction of the electronic device; and based on that the window display direction of the first target application is the same as the current holding direction of the electronic device, updating a window direction of an application other than the first target application on the electronic device, so that the window direction of the application other than the first target application is the same as the current holding direction of the electronic device; or based on that the window display direction of the first target application is different from the current holding direction of the electronic device, updating a window direction of each application of the plurality of applications on the electronic device, so that the window direction of each application of the plurality of the applications on the electronic device is the same as the current holding direction of the electronic device (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, 8, 14 with ¶0116, ¶0130-¶0133, ¶0137-¶0140, ¶0178-¶0179 – returning the device to portrait mode results in changing the background application to portrait orientation).
Regarding claim 16, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 14 above, and further discloses wherein based on detecting the operation of opening the second interface of the second application by using the first interface, and based on determining that the preset window direction of the second interface is different from the holding direction of the electronic device, the displaying the interface of the first target application in the preset window direction of the second interface, and keeping the window direction of the second target application unchanged comprises: obtaining the preset window direction of the second interface of the second application by using an activity manager of the electronic device, and based on the preset window direction being different from the holding direction of the electronic device, triggering, by the activity manager, a screen rotation manager to perform a screen rotation operation on a display window corresponding to the first target application (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, ¶0132-¶0135 – pop-up window is rotated 90 degrees to maintain the vertically fixed layout. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager).
Regarding claim 17, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein the triggering, by the activity manager, the screen rotation manager to perform the screen rotation operation on the display window corresponding to the first target application comprises: adjusting, based on the preset window direction of the second interface, width information, height information, and direction information of display content that are of the display window corresponding to the first target application, so that a window direction of the display window corresponding to the first target application is the same as the preset window direction of the second interface (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, Fig. 12 with ¶0115, ¶0132-¶0135, ¶0153 – pop-up window is rotated 90 degrees and adjusted in size and display direction on the screen to maintain the vertically fixed layout. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager).
Regarding claim 18, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein after the triggering, by the activity manager, the screen rotation manger to perform the screen rotation operation on the display window corresponding to the first target application, the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to enable the electronic device to perform operations comprising: sending, by the activity manager, a resource update event to the first target application, to trigger the first target application to refresh, based on the resource update event, a window layout corresponding to the first target application (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, Fig. 12 with ¶0115, ¶0132-¶0135, ¶0153 – pop-up window is rotated 90 degrees and adjusted in size and display direction on the screen to maintain the vertically fixed layout. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager).
Regarding claim 19, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 14 above, and further discloses wherein the first target application further comprises a background application whose prompt window is allowed to pop up (Jeong, ¶0092, ¶0169 – pop-up window. Ning, Fig. 9-10 with ¶0063-¶0066 – second application programs can be launched over top of the first interface. The second applications can be applications in a background running state that are popped up in the foreground).
Regarding claim 20, Jeong discloses an electronic device comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium which contains computer-executable instructions; the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to enable the electronic device to perform operations comprising (Jeong, Abstract – screen rotation control for an electronic device. Abstract and Fig. 4 with ¶0097-¶0104 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
displaying a first interface of a first application of a plurality of applications, wherein a window direction of the first interface is the same as a holding direction of the electronic device (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, and 8 with ¶0130, ¶0140 – background window (first application) is displayed in portrait orientation while the orientation of the device is in portrait or landscape while the orientation of the device is in landscape);
based on detecting an operation of opening a second interface of the first application by using the first interface of the first application (Jeong, Figs. 6A, 7, and 8 with ¶0130, ¶0137-¶0140 - pop-up window (second application) open operation causes the window to be open and interface displayed in portrait mode. The device is rotated to landscape mode, and the background window is switched rotated to landscape. Pop-up window is executed according to the user’s selection), and
based on determining that a preset window direction of the second interface is different from the holding direction of the electronic device, displaying the second interface in
However, Jeong appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ning discloses popup window and window management based on device orientation (Ning, Abstract with ¶0073, ¶0080), including
the second interface of the second application is displayed in full screen (Ning, Fig. 17 with ¶0104 – the second application floating window can be displayed in full screen), and
based on detecting the operation of closing the second application, displaying the first interface of the first application (Ning, Figs. 11 and 16 with ¶0097-¶0100 – canceling the second application results in showing the background application in the same orientation. ¶0093 – starting applications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the application interfaces of Jeong to include the displaying the second application in full screen, and returning to the first application interface in response to cancelling the second application based on the teachings of Ning. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to have greater control over application behavior, and allow users access interact with applications without losing access to the previous foreground application (Ning, ¶0112).
However, Jeong as modified appears not to expressly disclose that closing the second application returns to the first application when the second application is displayed in full screen. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hill discloses managing multiple software interfaces, including split or picture-in-picture modes (Hill, ¶0009 and ¶0023), including
closing the second application returns to the first application when the second application is displayed in full screen (Hill, Fig. 6 with ¶0043 – second application (web browser application) is displayed in full screen. When a reverse trigger is detected, the web browser is closed and the first application (media player) is shown in full screen. ¶0024, ¶0033 – reverse trigger event can be a gesture which closes the second application)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the full screen second application of Jeong as modified to include returning to the first application upon closure based on the teachings of Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable users to interact more easily with the second application, across greater screen real estate, while maintaining access to, and being able to easily transition back to, the previous foreground application.
Regarding claim 21, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first target application comprises an application for displaying a status bar (Jeong, Fig. 9 with ¶0084 – home application with internet connectivity, battery, and clock status bar. Figs. 9 and 6A – web browser application includes a status bar with internet connectivity icons, battery, and other status).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Ning in further view of Hill in further view of Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Jeong discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein after the displaying the interface of the first target application in the preset window direction of the second interface, and keeping a window direction of the second target application unchanged, the method further comprises: based on detecting that the holding direction of the electronic device changes, determining whether a window display direction of the first target application is the same as a current holding direction of the electronic device; and based on that the window display direction of the first target application is different from the current holding direction of the electronic device, updating a window direction of
However, Jeong appears not to expressly disclose the limitation in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a mobile device screen rotation control (Kim, Abstract with ¶0161), including
updating a window direction of each application on the electronic device (Kim, Fig. 3 with ¶0161-¶0165, ¶0202 – user configuration of an application rotation setting allows it to have transition between having fixed orientation and having orientation that adjusts according to device orientation changes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fixed-UI applications of Jeong to include enabling the settings to be changed by the user based on the teachings of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to have greater control and customization over application behavior.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Ning in further view of Hill in further view of Ignaszewski.
Regarding claim 11, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein based on detecting the operation of closing the second interface by the user, and based on the window direction of the first interface being different form the holding direction of the electronic device, performing the screen rotation operation on the display window of the first interface comprises: based on an activity manager of the electronic device detecting the operation of closing the second interface by the user, obtaining, by the activity manager, the window direction of the first interface, and determining whether the window direction of the first interface is the same as the holding direction of the electronic device (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, Fig. 12 with ¶0115, ¶0132-¶0135, ¶0153 – Elements 610 and 630 show adjusted direction, width, and height of the internet browser. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager. Ning, Figs. 11 and 16 with ¶0097-¶0100 – canceling the second application results in showing the background application in the same orientation); and
based on that the window direction of the first interface is different from the holding direction of the electronic device, notifying, by the activity manager, a screen rotation manager to perform a screen rotation operation on the display window of the first interface, and
However, Jeong as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitation in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ignaszewski discloses adjusting content orientation based on display orientation changes (Ignaszewski, Abstract), including
skipping displaying a screen rotation animation (Ignaszewski, Fig. 2 with ¶0020 and ¶0060-¶0061 – switching orientation display without animation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the orientation change rotation of Jeong as modified to include skipping based on the teachings of Ignaszewski. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to have greater control over application behavior including look and feel as well as responsiveness (Ignaszewski, ¶0060).
Regarding claim 12, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the notifying, by the activity manager, the screen rotation manager to perform the screen rotation operation on the display window of the first interface comprises: adjusting, based on the window direction of the first interface, width information, height information, and direction information of display content that are of the display window corresponding to the first application, so that a window direction of the display window corresponding to the first application is the same as the window direction of the first interface (Jeong, Fig. 6A-6B, Fig. 12 with ¶0115, ¶0132-¶0135, ¶0153 – Elements 610 and 630 show adjusted direction, width, and height of the internet browser. See also Element 1230. ¶0120-¶0123 – window orientation is controlled by window manager).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Ning in further view of Hill in further view of Ignaszewski in further view of Chaudhri.
Regarding claim 13, Jeong as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein after the screen rotation manager performs the screen rotation operation on the display window of the first interface, the method further comprises: closing, by the activity manager, a display window of the second interface, displaying, by the activity manager, a closing
However, Jeong as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Chaudhri discloses managing application views (Chaudhri, ¶292), including home screen views (Chaudhri, Fig. 5G with ¶0233), including
closing, by the activity manager, a display window of the second interface, displaying, by the activity manager, a closing animation, displaying, by the activity manager, a display window of the first interface, and displaying, by the activity manager, a startup animation (Chaudhri, ¶0292 with Figs. 5VVV-5YYY – animated transitions when applications are opened and closed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the starting and closing applications of Jeong as modified to include animations based on the teachings of Chaudhri. The motivation for doing so would have been to convey to the user the effect of interactions with the user interface, thereby improving intuitiveness and transparency of the interface (Chaudhri, ¶0085).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain 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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174