DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 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; and also overcome both the double patenting rejection and contingent limitation interpretation below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to explicitly teach the combination of features recited in claims 6 and 16, including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims (assuming that the contingent limitations in the claims are rewritten to be non-contingent limitations). Specifically, the prior art fails to explicitly teach determining that the second touch control operation of tapping on a target screen capture thumbnail in the first screenshot or the second screenshot (wherein the target screen capture thumbnail is at least one of screen capture thumbnails corresponding to the plurality of split-screens in the first screenshot or the second screenshot and the second touch control operation results in saving the target screen capture thumbnail to a gallery and deleting all screenshots except the target screen capture thumbnail) is not received within a first time period after any one of the first touch control operation, the instruction of the screen capture operation performed by using a knuckle, or the instruction of the screen capture operation performed by pressing a key combination; and in response to that determination, splicing all screen captures in the second screenshot into a picture and saving both the picture and the first screenshot to the gallery.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,005 (hereinafter “Reference Patent”), in view of Shan Lanxin (hereinafter “Shan”) CN109388304A (references to paragraphs correspond to the Examiner provided translation). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the Instant Application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the Reference Patent in view of Shan.
Claim 1 of the Instant Application corresponds to claim 1 of the Reference Patent, in view of Shan. For example, please see table below which shows that the bolded portions of claim 1 of the Reference Patent correspond to the bolded portions of claim 1 of the Instant Application:
Instant Application
18/428,141
Reference Patent
11,922,005
1. A screen capture method, comprising:
determining a first touch control operation in which a plurality of touch control points move by a distance greater than or equal to a first preset distance threshold in a first screen, the first screen comprises a plurality of split-screens;
determining whether start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement in the first touch control operation are all located in a target split-screen in the first screen, wherein the target split-screen is any one of the plurality of split-screens; and
capturing current display content of the target split-screen as a first screenshot, in response to determining that the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen.
1. A screen capture method, comprising:
displaying a first screen comprising three split-screens, wherein the three split-screens comprise a first application, a second application and a third application, and wherein the first application is displayed adjacent the second application in a first direction;
displaying, in response to a first user operation, a first thumbnail of a first screenshot corresponding to the first application, a second thumbnail of a second screenshot corresponding to the second application and a third thumbnail of a third screenshot corresponding to the third application, wherein the first thumbnail is also displayed adjacent the second thumbnail in the first direction;
responsive to receiving a second user operation on the first thumbnail in a first time period, saving the first screenshot as a picture to a gallery, wherein the gallery does not comprise the second screenshot or the third screenshot after the second user operation; and
responsive to receiving no user operation in the first time period, saving the first screenshot, the second screenshot and the third screenshot to the gallery together as a single picture.
The Reference Patent does not explicitly teach the italicized limitations of claim 1 of the Instant Application above. Similar to the Instant Application and the Reference Patent, Shan also teaches a first screen comprising a plurality of split-screens (the first screen shown in Figure 1a comprises split screen A and split-screen B) (Shan: paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0040]-[0041]) and capturing a screenshot (taking a screenshot of the content on the first screen) (Shan: paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0040]-[0041]). In addition, Shan teaches determining a first touch control operation in which a plurality of touch control points move by a distance greater than or equal to a first preset distance threshold in a first screen, the first screen comprises a plurality of split-screens (in the first screen comprising split-screen A and split-screen B shown in Figure 1a, determining the user’s operation of a multi-finger swipe operation; the swipe operation being greater than a preset distance) (Shan: paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0040]-[0041]); determining whether start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement in the first touch control operation are all located in a target split-screen in the first screen, wherein the target split-screen is any one of the plurality of split-screens (for example, determining that the user swipe operation starts in target split-screen B shown in Figure 1a) (Shan: paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0040]-[0041]); and capturing current display content of the target split-screen as a first screenshot, in response to determining that the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen (in response to user swipe operation starting in target split-screen B, the terminal takes a screenshot of the content in split-screen B) (Shan: paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0040]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by the Reference Patent to further include the recited features taught by Shan. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide the user with the ability to take a screenshot of the content in any display window when content is displayed in multiple display windows, which can improve the screenshot quality/effect (Shan: paragraphs [0005] and [0019]).
Claim 11 of the Instant Application recites an electronic device embodiment with limitations that correspond to the method embodiment recited in claim 1 of the Instant Application. Claim 12 of the Reference Patent recites an electronic device embodiment with limitations that correspond to the method embodiment recited in claim 1 of the Reference Patent. Therefore, claim 11 of the Instant Application is mapped to claim 12 of the Reference Patent and combined with Shan in a similar way as recited above.
Claims 2 and 12 of the Instant Application: please see claims 1 and 12 of the Reference Patent (“displaying a first screen comprising three split-screens, wherein the three split-screens comprise a first application, a second application and a third application, and wherein the first application is displayed adjacent the second application in a first direction; displaying, in response to a first user operation, a first thumbnail of a first screenshot corresponding to the first application, a second thumbnail of a second screenshot corresponding to the second application and a third thumbnail of a third screenshot corresponding to the third application, wherein the first thumbnail is also displayed adjacent the second thumbnail in the first direction”).
Claims 3 and 13 of the Instant Application: please see claims 1 and 12 (“displaying a first screen comprising three split-screens, wherein the three split-screens comprise a first application, a second application and a third application, and wherein the first application is displayed adjacent the second application in a first direction; displaying, in response to a first user operation, a first thumbnail of a first screenshot corresponding to the first application, a second thumbnail of a second screenshot corresponding to the second application and a third thumbnail of a third screenshot corresponding to the third application, wherein the first thumbnail is also displayed adjacent the second thumbnail in the first direction”) and claims 5 and 16 (“wherein the first user operation comprises a pressing operation on a key combination”) of the Referenced Patent.
Claims 4 and 14 of the Instant Application: please see claims 1 and 12 of the Reference Patent (“responsive to receiving a second user operation on the first thumbnail in a first time period, saving the first screenshot as a picture to a gallery, wherein the gallery does not comprise the second screenshot or the third screenshot after the second user operation”).
Claims 6 and 16 of the Instant Application: please see claims 1 and 12 of the Reference Patent (“responsive to receiving no user operation in the first time period, saving the first screenshot, the second screenshot and the third screenshot to the gallery together as a single picture”).
Claims 9 and 19 of the Instant Application: please see claims 1 and 12 of the Reference Patent (“saving the first screenshot as a picture to a gallery”).
Claims 10 and 20 of the Instant Application: please see claims 2 and 13 (“responsive to receiving a third user operation on the first thumbnail, sending the first screenshot to the second application” and claims 4 and 15 (“wherein the third user operation comprises a sliding operation starting from the first thumbnail and ending at the second application”) of the Reference Patent.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,005 (hereinafter “Reference Patent”) in view of Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Jon et al. (hereinafter “Jon”) U.S. Publication 2019/0147026.
Referring to claims 5 and 15, the Reference Patent in view of Shan (hereinafter “the combination of Reference Patent/Shan”) teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 4 and 14 above. The combination of Reference Patent/Shan fails to explicitly teach receiving a drag operation on the target screen capture thumbnail, wherein the drag operation is an operation of moving the target screen capture thumbnail by using at least one touch control point; and controlling, based on the drag operation, the target screen capture thumbnail to be shared or inserted to a split-screen area in which an end position of movement of the drag operation is located. Similar to the combination of Reference Patent/Shan, Jon also teaches displaying a screen capture thumbnail (screen capture thumbnail 5158 shown in Figure 5Z) (Jon: paragraph [0198]). In addition, Jon teaches receiving a drag operation on a target screen capture thumbnail, wherein the drag operation is an operation of moving the target screen capture thumbnail by using at least one touch control point (Figure 5Z shows a touch and drag operation on the screen capture thumbnail 5158) (Jon: paragraph [0198]); and controlling, based on the drag operation, the target screen capture thumbnail to be shared or inserted to a split-screen area in which an end position of movement of the drag operation is located (in response to the user dragging the screen capture thumbnail 5158 to a location in split screen area 5150, the thumbnail is inserted into that location) (Jon: paragraphs [0198] and [0276]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of the screen capture thumbnails taught by the combination of Reference Patent/Shan to further include Jon’s teaching of inserting a dragged target screen capture thumbnail to a split-screen area in which a position of movement of the drag operation is located. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a seamless user experience that requires less time and user inputs when inserting/exporting screenshot images into an application, which additionally reduces power usage and improves battery life of the device by enabling the user to use the device more quickly and efficiently (Jon: paragraph [0276]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,005 (hereinafter “Reference Patent”) in view of Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Yan U.S. Publication 2022/0179549.
Referring to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Reference Patent/Shan teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above. However, although the combination of Reference Patent/Shan teaches capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot if the positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are not all located in the target split-screen (when the multi-finger swipe operation passes through at least two display windows, take a screenshot of the content in the display windows through which the operation passes) (Shan: paragraphs [0051]-[0053] and further shown in Figure 2a), the combination of Reference Patent/Shan fails to explicitly teach capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot if the start positions of the plurality of touch points during the movement are not all located in the target split-screen and saving the third screenshot to a gallery. Similar to the combination of Reference Patent/Shan, Yan also teaches capturing current display content of a target split-screen as a first screenshot in response to determining that start positions of a plurality of touch control points during movement are all located in the target split-screen (as shown in Figure 4 for example: the user performs an input of touching points all starting in target split-screen A2 and sliding downwards, causing the terminal to perform a screen capturing operation on interface L2 displayed on the target split-screen A2) (Yan: paragraph [0070]). In addition, Yan also teaches if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are not all located in the target split-screen in the first screen, capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot (in response to a first input selecting one or more interfaces K, the device performs screen capturing operation on N interfaces based on the first input to obtain N images, where the K interfaces and N interfaces/images are the same in quantity; the terminal may synthesize the N first images to obtain and save one image, namely a target screenshot; for example: if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points are located in two interfaces on the screen, i.e. K=2, the device would obtain a screen capturing image on the N=2 interfaces and synthesize those two images into a single target screenshot) (Yan: paragraphs [0042], [0053]-[0056], [0061]-[0062] and [0075]-[0076]) and saving the third screenshot to a gallery (saving the target screenshot to a preset storage area) (Yan: paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shan’s teaching of capturing current display content of the target split-screen as a first screenshot in response to determining that the start positions of the touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen to further include capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during movement are not all located in the target split-screen, as taught by Yan. One would have been motivated to make a such a combination in order to simplify the user’s operation in a screen capturing process, so that the device can quickly and flexibly perform the screen capturing operation on multiple screens (Yan: paragraph [0064]).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,005 (hereinafter “Reference Patent”) in view of Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mo et al. (hereinafter “Mo”) U.S. Publication 2022/0179549.
Referring to claims 8 and 18, the combination of Reference Patent/Shan teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above. However, the combination of Reference Patent/Shan fails to explicitly teach: if the plurality of touch control points move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold during movement in the target split-screen, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen, wherein the second preset distance threshold is greater than the first preset distance threshold and a ratio between the second preset distance threshold and a height of the target split-screen is greater than a preset ratio threshold; or if the first touch control operation on the target split-screen is received again within a second time period after the first touch control operation is received, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen; or if the first touch control operation comprises four touch control points, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen. Similar to the combination of Reference Patent/Shan, Mo also teaches capturing current display content of a target screen as a screenshot in response to a plurality of touch control points moving by a distance greater than or equal to a first preset distance threshold (in response to multiple touch points sliding a certain distance, a page or area screenshot image of the screen is captured) (Mo: paragraphs [0046], [0049]-0053] and [0111]-[0114]). In addition, Mo teaches if the plurality of touch control points move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold during movement in the target screen, taking a long screen capture of an area of the target screen, wherein the second preset distance threshold is greater than the first preset distance threshold and a ratio between the second preset distance threshold and a height of the target screen is greater than a preset ratio threshold (enable a long screenshot operation when the end point of a touch and slide operation is outside a specified area, i.e. the touch point keeps sliding past the page and into the edge of the bottom) (Mo: paragraphs [0046], [0049]-0053] and [0111]-[0114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the combination of Reference Patent/Shan’s teaching of capturing a screenshot of the current display content of the target split-screen in response to moving a plurality of touch control points starting in the target split-screen by a distance greater than or equal to a first preset distance to further include taking a long screen capture of the screen if the plurality of touch control points move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold greater than the first preset distance threshold and a ratio between the second preset distance threshold and a height of the target screen being greater than a preset ration threshold, as taught by Mo. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide operation continuity and reduce complexity in switching between different screenshot modes (Mo: paragraphs [0003], [0009], [0036]-[0037] and [0112]).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitation: “capturing current display content of the target split-screen as a first screenshot, in response to determining that the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step that is only required to be performed if the condition precedent is met. This limitation only needs to be performed if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen. If the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during movement are not all located in the target split-screen in the first screen, then “capturing current display content of the target split-screen as a first screenshot” would not be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 1 does not require this limitation.
Claim 11 recites a similar contingent limitation as the contingent limitation recited in claim 1. However, since claim 11 is a product claim, the BRI of claim 11 requires structures for performing the contingent limitation.
Claim 2 recites the following contingent limitation: “in response to determining that the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen, the method further comprises: capturing current display content of the plurality of split-screens in the first screen as corresponding screenshots; and generating a second screenshot comprising the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of split-screens, wherein the screenshots are arranged in the second screenshot in a manner in which the corresponding split-screens are distributed in the first screen, and each of the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of split-screens is a thumbnail that is allowed to receive a touch control operation.” This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if the condition precedent is met. This limitation only needs to be performed if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen. If the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during movement are not all located in the target split-screen in the first screen, then the limitation of “ capturing current display content of the plurality of split-screens in the first screen as corresponding screenshots; and generating a second screenshot comprising the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of split-screens, wherein the screenshots are arranged in the second screenshot in a manner in which the corresponding split-screens are distributed in the first screen, and each of the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of split-screens is a thumbnail that is allowed to receive a touch control operation” would not be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 2 does not require this limitation.
Claim 12 recites a similar contingent limitation as the contingent limitation recited in claim 2. However, since claim 12 is a product claim, the BRI of claim 12 requires structures for performing the contingent limitation.
Claim 6 recites the following contingent limitation: “if the second touch control operation is not received within a first time period after any one of the first touch control operation, the instruction of the screen capture operation performed by using a knuckle, or the instruction of the screen capture operation performed by pressing a key combination is received, splicing all screen captures in the second screenshot into a picture and saving the picture and the first screenshot to the gallery.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step that is only required to be performed if the condition precedent is met. This limitation only need to be performed if the second touch control operation is not received within a first time period after any one of the first touch control operation, the instruction of the screen capture operation performed by using a knuckle, or the instruction of the screen capture operation performed by pressing a key combination is received. If the second touch control operation is received within the first time period, then “splicing all screen captures in the second screenshot into a picture and saving the picture and the first screenshot to the gallery” would not be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 6 does not require this limitation.
Claim 16 recites a similar contingent limitation as the contingent limitation recited in claim 6. However, since claim 16 is a product claim, the BRI of claim 16 requires structures for performing the contingent limitation.
Claim 7 recites the following contingent limitation: “if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are not all located in the target split-screen in the first screen, capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot and saving the third screenshot to a gallery.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step that is only required to be performed if the condition precedent is met. This limitation only needs to be performed if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are not all located in the target split-screen in the first screen. If the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen, then “capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot and saving the third screenshot to a gallery” would not be performed. The contingent limitation of claim 7 and the contingent limitation of claim 1 are mutually exclusive, and therefore only one of the contingent limitation of claim 1 or the contingent limitation of claim 7 can be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 7 does not require this limitation.
Claim 17 recites a similar contingent limitation as the contingent limitation recited in claim 7. However, since claim 17 is a product claim, the BRI of claim 17 requires structures for performing the contingent limitation.
Claim 8 recites the following contingent limitations:
“if the plurality of touch control points move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold during movement in the target split-screen, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen, wherein the second preset distance threshold is greater than the first preset distance threshold and a ratio between the second preset distance threshold and a height of the target split-screen is greater than a preset ratio threshold.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step that is only required to be performed if the condition precedent is met. This limitation only needs to be performed if the plurality of touch control points move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold during movement in the target split-screen. If the plurality of touch control points does not move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold during movement in the target split-screen, then taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen would not be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 8 does not require this limitation.
“if the first touch control operation on the target split-screen is received again within a second time period after the first touch control operation is received, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step that is only required to be performed if the condition precedent is met. This limitation only needs to be performed if the first touch control operation on the target split-screen is received again within a second time period after the first touch control operation is received. If the first touch control operation on the target split-screen is not received again within a second time period after the first touch control operation is received, then taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen would not be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 8 does not require this limitation.
“if the first touch control operation comprises four touch control points, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step that is only required to be performed if the condition precedent is met. This limitation only needs to be performed if the first touch control operation comprises four touch control points. If the first touch control operation does not comprise four touch control points, then taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen would not be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 8 does not require this limitation.
Claim 18 recites similar contingent limitations as the contingent limitations recited in claim 6. However, since claim 18 is a product claim, the BRI of claim 18 requires structures for performing one of the contingent limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”).
Referring to claim 1, Shan teaches a screen capture method, comprising:
determining a first touch control operation in which a plurality of touch control points move by a distance greater than or equal to a first preset distance threshold in a first screen, the first screen comprises a plurality of split-screens (in the first screen comprising split-screen A and split-screen B shown in Figure 1a, determining the user’s operation of a multi-finger swipe operation; the swipe operation being greater than a preset distance) (paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0040]-[0041]);
determining whether start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement in the first touch control operation are all located in a target split-screen in the first screen, wherein the target split-screen is any one of the plurality of split-screens (for example, determining that the user swipe operation starts in target split-screen B shown in Figure 1a) (paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0040]-[0041]); and
capturing current display content of the target split-screen as a first screenshot, in response to determining that the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen (in response to user swipe operation starting in target split-screen B, the terminal takes a screenshot of the content in split-screen B) (paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0040]-[0041]).
Claim 11 recites an electronic device embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Decker et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0138313 (hereinafter “Decker”).
Referring to claim 2 and claim 12, Shan teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above. However, Shan fails to explicitly teach that the first screenshot is a thumbnail, and further comprising capturing current display content of the plurality of split-screens in the first screen as corresponding screenshots; and generating a second screenshot comprising the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of split-screens, wherein the screenshots are arranged in the second screenshot in a manner in which the corresponding split-screens are distributed in the first screen, and each of the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of split-screens is a thumbnail that is allowed to receive a touch control operation. Similar to Shan, Decker also teaches taking a first screenshot of displayed content (for example, Figure 9B shows a first screenshot 911 of the content displayed in the window screen of Figure 9A) (Decker: paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0076]-[0077]). In addition, Decker teaches that the first screenshot is a thumbnail (the screenshots shown in Figure 9B are thumbnails) (Decker: paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0076]-[0077]), and further comprising capturing current display content of the plurality of screen areas in the first screen as corresponding screenshots (Figure 9B shows that the content of each tab on the display screen shown in Figure 9A is captured and displayed as a snapshot image thumbnail) (Decker: paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0076]-[0077]); and generating a second screenshot comprising the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of screen areas (the plurality of snapshot image thumbnails corresponding to the tabs are displayed as shown in Figure 9B) (Decker: paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0076]-[0077]), wherein the screenshots are arranged in the second screenshot in a manner in which the corresponding screen areas are distributed in the first screen (the thumbnails are displayed in an ordered view according to the display order of the tabs as shown in Figure 9B) (Decker: paragraph [0048]), and each of the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of screen areas is a thumbnail that is allowed to receive a touch control operation (the user can select each of the thumbnails in the tab bar shown in Figure 9B) (Decker: paragraphs [0007] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shan’s teaching of capturing current display content of the target split-screen of a plurality of split-screens in a first screen as a first screenshot in response to determining that the start positions of the plurality of touch points during movement are all located in the target split-screen to further include additionally generating a second screenshot comprising screenshots corresponding to the plurality of screen areas in the first screen as corresponding screenshots arranged in a manner in which the corresponding screen areas are distributed, where the screenshots are thumbnails, as taught by Decker. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow a user to easily identify the separate screen areas, thereby avoiding clutter and confusion when working with a device with small display real estate (Decker: paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and [0006]).
Referring to claim 3 and claim 13, Shan teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above. However, although Shan teaches receiving a screen capture operation performed by using a knuckle or a screen capture operation performed by pressing a key combination (the user operation that causes the capturing of the screenshot can be a combination of physical buttons) (Shan: paragraphs [0042] and [0106]), Shan fails to explicitly teach capturing current display content of all split-screens in the first screen as corresponding screenshots based on an instruction of the screen capture operation; and generating a second screenshot comprising the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of split-screens and each of the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of split-screens is a thumbnail that is allowed to receive a touch control operation. Similar to Shan, Decker also teaches taking a first screenshot of displayed content (for example, Figure 9B shows a first screenshot 911 of the content displayed in the window screen of Figure 9A) (Decker: paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0076]-[0077]). In addition, Decker teaches capturing current display content of all screen areas in the first screen as corresponding screenshots based on an instruction of the screen capture operation performed by using a knuckle or by pressing a key combination (Figure 9B shows that the content of each tab on the display screen shown in Figure 9A is captured and displayed as a snapshot image thumbnail in response to a user command, such as key combination of Comman+Shift+T) (Decker: paragraphs [0005]-[0006], [0033], [0067] and [0076]-[0077]); and generating a second screenshot comprising the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of screen areas (the plurality of snapshot image thumbnails corresponding to the tabs are displayed as shown in Figure 9B) (Decker: paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0076]-[0077]), wherein the screenshots are arranged in the second screenshot in a manner in which the corresponding screen areas are distributed in the first screen (the thumbnails are displayed in an ordered view according to the display order of the tabs as shown in Figure 9B) (Decker: paragraph [0048]), and each of the screenshots corresponding to the plurality of screen areas is a thumbnail that is allowed to receive a touch control operation (the user can select each of the thumbnails in the tab bar shown in Figure 9B) (Decker: paragraphs [0007] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shan’s teaching of capturing current display content of the target split-screen of a plurality of split-screens in a first screen as a first screenshot in response to determining that the start positions of the plurality of touch points during movement are all located in the target split-screen to further include additionally generating a second screenshot in response to pressing a key combination, the second screenshot comprising screenshots corresponding to the plurality of screen areas in the first screen as corresponding screenshot thumbnails arranged in a manner in which the corresponding screen areas are distributed, as taught by Decker. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow a user to easily identify the separate screen areas, thereby avoiding clutter and confusion when working with a device with small display real estate (Decker: paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and [0006]).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), in view of Decker et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0138313 (hereinafter “Decker”), as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) U.S. Publication 2018/0046341.
Referring to claim 4 and claim 14, Shan in view of Decker (hereinafter “the combination of Shan/Decker”) teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 3 and 13 above. However, the combination of Shan/Decker fails to explicitly teach receiving a second touch control operation of tapping a target screen capture thumbnail in the first screenshot or the second screenshot, wherein the target screen capture thumbnail is at least one of screen capture thumbnails corresponding to the plurality of split-screens in the first screenshot or the second screenshot; saving the target screen capture thumbnail to a gallery based on the second touch control operation; and deleting all screenshots except the target screen capture thumbnail in the first screenshot or the second screenshot. Similar to the combination of Shan/Decker, Lee also teaches displaying a plurality of screen capture thumbnails corresponding to a plurality of screen portions in screenshots (for example, Figure 4 shows a plurality of screen capture thumbnails 411 and 412 corresponding to screenshots of different areas B and C of the display screen) (Lee: paragraph [0167]). In addition, Lee teaches receiving a second touch control operation of tapping a target screen capture thumbnail in the first screenshot or the second screenshot, wherein the target screen capture thumbnail is at least one of screen capture thumbnails corresponding to the plurality of screen portions in the first screenshot or the second screenshot (for example, the user can touch one or more of the screen capture thumbnails shown in Figure 11) (Lee: paragraph [0229]); saving the target screen capture thumbnail to a gallery based on the second touch control operation (the thumbnails touched by the user can be saved) (Lee: paragraph [0229]); and deleting all screenshots except the target screen capture thumbnail in the first screenshot or the second screenshot (the non-selected portion is deleted) (Lee: paragraphs [0223] and [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of the plurality of screen capture thumbnails corresponding to the plurality of split-screens in the first screenshot and the second screenshot taught by the combination of Shan/Decker to further include Lee’s teaching of saving a tapped target capture thumbnail and deleting all other screenshots. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow the user to easily edit an area captured based on a touch gesture (Lee: paragraph [0219]).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), in view of Decker et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0138313 (hereinafter “Decker”), and in view of Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0046341 (hereinafter “Lee”), as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Jon et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0147026 (hereinafter “Jon”).
Referring to claim 5 and claim 15, Shan in view of Decker and further in view of Lee (hereinafter “the combination of Shan/Decker/Lee”) teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 4 and 14 above. Although the combination of Shan/Decker/Lee teaches receiving a drag operation on the target screen capture thumbnail, wherein the drag operation is an operation of moving the target screen capture thumbnail by using at least one touch control point (for example, Figure 10 of Lee shows that a touch applied to screen capture thumbnail 1012 can be dragged towards the outside/center) (Lee: paragraphs [0076] and [0223]), the combination of Shan/Decker/Lee fails to explicitly teach controlling, based on the drag operation, the target screen capture thumbnail to be shared or inserted to a split-screen area in which an end position of movement of the drag operation is located. Similar to the combination of Shan/Decker/Lee, Jon also teaches receiving a drag operation on a target screen capture thumbnail, wherein the drag operation is an operation of moving the target screen capture thumbnail by using at least one touch control point (Figure 5Z shows a touch and drag operation on a screen capture thumbnail 5158) (Jon: paragraph [0198]). In addition, Jon also teaches controlling, based on the drag operation, the target screen capture thumbnail to be shared or inserted to a split-screen area in which an end position of movement of the drag operation is located (in response to the user dragging the screen capture thumbnail 5158 to a location in split screen area 5150, the thumbnail is inserted into that location) (Jon: paragraphs [0198] and [0276]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drag operation taught by the combination of Shan/Decker/Lee to further include Jon’s teaching of inserting the dragged target screen capture thumbnail to a split-screen area in which a position of movement of the drag operation is located. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a seamless user experience that requires less time and user inputs when inserting/exporting screenshot images into an application, which additionally reduces power usage and improves battery life of the device by enabling the user to use the device more quickly and efficiently (Jon: paragraph [0276]).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Yan U.S. Publication 2022/0179549.
Referring to claim 7 and claim 17, Shan teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above. However, although Shan teaches capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot if the positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are not all located in the target split-screen (when the multi-finger swipe operation passes through at least two display windows, take a screenshot of the content in the display windows through which the operation passes) (Shan: paragraphs [0051]-[0053] and further shown in in Figure 2a), Shan fails to explicitly teach capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot if the start positions of the plurality of touch points during the movement are not all located in the target split-screen and saving the third screenshot to a gallery. Similar to Shan, Yan also teaches capturing current display content of a target split-screen as a first screenshot in response to determining that start positions of a plurality of touch control points during movement are all located in the target split-screen (as shown in Figure 4 for example: the user performs an input of touching points all starting in target split-screen A2 and sliding downwards, causing the terminal to perform a screen capturing operation on interface L2 displayed on the target split-screen A2) (Yan: paragraphs [0070]). In addition, Yan teaches if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during the movement are not all located in the target split-screen in the first screen, capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot (in response to a first input selecting one or more interfaces K, the device performs screen capturing operation on N interfaces based on the first input to obtain N images, where the K interfaces and N interfaces/images are the same in quantity; the terminal may synthesize the N first images to obtain and save one image, namely a target screenshot; for example: if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points are located in two interfaces on the screen, i.e. K=2, the device would obtain a screen capturing image on the N=2 interfaces and synthesize those two images into a single target screenshot) (Yan: paragraphs [0042], [0053]-[0056], [0061]-[0062] and [0075]-[0076]) and saving the third screenshot to a gallery (saving the target screenshot to a preset storage area) (Yan: paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shan’s teaching of capturing current display content of the target split-screen as a first screenshot in response to determining that the start positions of the touch control points during the movement are all located in the target split-screen in the first screen to further include capturing current display content of the first screen as a third screenshot if the start positions of the plurality of touch control points during movement are not all located in the target split-screen, as taught by Yan. One would have been motivated to make a such a combination in order to simplify the user’s operation in a screen capturing process, so that the device can quickly and flexibly perform the screen capturing operation (Yan: paragraph [0064]).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mo et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0179549 (hereinafter “Mo”).
Referring to claim 8 and claim 18, Shan teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above. However, Shan fails to explicitly teach: if the plurality of touch control points move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold during movement in the target split-screen, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen, wherein the second preset distance threshold is greater than the first preset distance threshold and a ratio between the second preset distance threshold and a height of the target split-screen is greater than a preset ratio threshold; or if the first touch control operation on the target split-screen is received again within a second time period after the first touch control operation is received, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen; or if the first touch control operation comprises four touch control points, taking a long screen capture of a split-screen area of the target split-screen. Similar to Shan, Mo also teaches capturing current display content of a target screen as a screenshot in response to a plurality of touch control points moving by a distance greater than or equal to a first preset distance threshold (in response to multiple touch points sliding a certain distance, a page or area screenshot image of the screen is captured) (Mo: paragraphs [0046], [0049]-0053] and [0111]-[0114]). In addition, Mo teaches if the plurality of touch control points move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold during movement in the target screen, taking a long screen capture of an area of the target screen, wherein the second preset distance threshold is greater than the first preset distance threshold and a ratio between the second preset distance threshold and a height of the target screen is greater than a preset ratio threshold (enable a long screenshot operation when the end point of a touch and slide operation is outside a specified area, i.e. the touch point keeps sliding past the page and into the edge of the bottom) (Mo: paragraphs [0046], [0049]-0053] and [0111]-[0114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Shan’s teaching of capturing a screenshot of the current display content of the target split-screen in response to moving a plurality of touch control points starting in the target split-screen by a distance greater than or equal to a first preset distance to further include taking a long screen capture of the screen if the plurality of touch control points move by a distance length greater than or equal to a second preset distance threshold greater than the first preset distance threshold and a ratio between the second preset distance threshold and a height of the target screen being greater than a preset ration threshold, as taught by Mo. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide operation continuity and reduce complexity in switching between different screenshot modes (Mo: paragraphs [0003], [0009], [0036]-[0037] and [0112]).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jon et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0147026 (hereinafter “Jon”).
Referring to claim 9 and claim 19, Shan teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above. However, Shan fails to explicitly teach saving the first screenshot to a gallery. Similar to Shan, Jon also teaches capturing a first screenshot of a first screen comprising a plurality of split screens (Figure 5Z shows a first screen comprising split-screens 5100 and 5150; the user can provide a screenshot capture input which causes a screenshot 5168 of the first screen shown in Figure 5Z to be captured) (Jon: paragraphs [0195] and [0197]). In addition, Jon teaches saving the first screenshot to a gallery (saving the screenshot image in an image storage repository, i.e. camera roll) (Jon: paragraph [0169]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shan’s capture of the first screenshot to further include saving the captured screenshot to a gallery, as taught by Jon. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a seamless user experience that requires less time and user inputs when saving/storing screenshot images, which additionally, reduces power usage and improves battery life of the device by enabling the user to use the device more quickly and efficiently (Jon: paragraph [0235]).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan Lanxin CN109388304A (hereinafter “Shan”), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lu et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0088764 (hereinafter “Lu”).
Referring to claim 10 and claim 20, Shan teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above. However, Shan fails to explicitly teach displaying a thumbnail corresponding to the first screenshot; and in response to a drag operation starting at the thumbnail related to the first screenshot and ending at a second application, sending the first screenshot to the second application. Similar to Shan, Lu also teaches capturing a first screenshot (taking a screenshot in response to a screenshot operation instruction) (Lu: paragraphs [0006] and [0048]-[0049]). In addition, Lu teaches displaying a thumbnail corresponding to the first screenshot (the image corresponding to the screenshot image can be a thumbnail) (Lu: paragraph [0057]); and in response to a drag operation starting at the thumbnail related to the first screenshot and ending at a second application, sending the first screenshot to the second application (the screenshot image thumbnail can be dragged to a target application, which causes the screenshot to be shared to the target application) (Lu: paragraphs [0011], [0066] and [0096]-[0106]; this is further shown in Figures 4A-4D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capturing of the first screenshot taught by Shan to further include sending the first screenshot to a second application in response to a drag operation starting at a thumbnail corresponding to the first screenshot and ending at the second application, as taught by Lu. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow the user to easily and conveniently share content across applications (Lu: paragraphs [0003] and [0072]).
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. The documents cited therein (US8913076 and US20140164957) teach similar methods of generating snapshots representing a plurality of windows.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4058. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 27. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights