DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “a first mode”. This should recite “the first mode” to refer back to the recited “a first mode” in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a sliding operation”. This should recite “the sliding operation” to refer back to the recited “a sliding operation” in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 17 recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and is objected to for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
4. Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 15, 16, 18, and 19 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.
In regard to claim 2, claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the operation type is a sliding operation” while claim 2 recites “the operation type is a click operation”. The specification does not disclose and it is not clear how an operation type can be simultaneously both a click operation and a sliding operation, as required by the claim. Accordingly, the claim is 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.
In regard to claim 3, this claim is rejected at least based on the dependency to claim 2.
In regard to claim 5, claim 5 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the operation type is a sliding operation” while claim 5 recites “the operation type being a shortcut key”. The specification does not disclose and it is not clear how an operation type can be simultaneously both a shortcut key and a sliding operation, as required by the claim. Accordingly, the claim is 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.
In regard to claim 6, claim 6 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the operation type is a sliding operation” while claim 6 recites “the operation type being a long press operation…or…the operation type being a dragging operation”. The specification does not disclose and it is not clear how an operation type can be simultaneously both a long press operation/dragging operation and a sliding operation, as required by the claim. Accordingly, the claim is 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.
In regard to claim 7, claim 7 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the operation type is a sliding operation” while claim 7 recites “the operation type being a click operation”. The specification does not disclose and it is not clear how an operation type can be simultaneously both a click operation and a sliding operation, as required by the claim. Accordingly, the claim is 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.
In regard to claim 8, claim 8 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the operation type is a sliding operation” while claim 8 recites “the operation type being a dragging operation”. The specification does not disclose and it is not clear how an operation type can be simultaneously both a dragging operation and a sliding operation, as required by the claim. Accordingly, the claim is 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.
In regard to claim 15, claim 15 recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
In regard to claim 16, claim 16 depends from claim 15 and is rejected at least based on the dependency to claim 15.
In regard to claim 18, claim 18 recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasons.
In regard to claim 19, claim 19 recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 20 are allowed.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose “wherein the determining the second window to be displayed on the display interface after the first operation and the second window information based on at least one of the first window information, the operation object and the operation type comprises: in response to the first window information indicating that the first window is a temporary full-screen window and the operation type is a sliding operation, determining that the second window is a temporary full-screen window displaying an application bar and the second window information is a window information of the temporary full-screen window displaying the application bar; wherein after displaying the second window, the method further comprises: receiving a first display mode switching instruction; in response to receiving the first display mode switching instruction, performing window mapping on the second window based on a first window mapping mode to obtain a third window; and displaying the third window in a second display mode”, as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 14 and 20, in combination with the other elements recited.
The arguments filed 12/24/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections in view of the claim amendments and the previously applied prior art are found persuasive. That is, the previously applied prior art references fail to disclose the combination of limitations in each of the independent claims for the reasons argued. An updated search of the prior art was performed, but no references alone or in combination are found to teach the combination of limitations in each of the independent claims. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 14, and 20 and claims 11, 12, and 13 that depend therefrom are allowable over the prior art of record. Claims 2-8 and 15-19 remain rejected over 35 U.S.C. 112 or are objected to for informalities and therefore are not allowable.
Response to Arguments
6. The amendments to claim 20 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 20. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 21 is withdrawn.
7. The amendments to claims 1-13 are sufficient to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claim 1-13. Accordingly, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 1-13 are withdrawn. However, the amendments have introduced new 112 issues which are address in the above 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
8. The arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections in view of the claim amendments and the previously applied prior art are found persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments and the arguments.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179