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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood:
As per claim 1, line 7 and 11, it is unclear whether “a request” is referring to the same “request” in line 3 (i.e. consistent term should be used with “the” or “said” if they are the same)
Line 5, 7, 8 and 12, it is unclear whether “focus” is referring to the same “focus” of the computer system in line 3 (i.e. consistent term should be used with “the” or “said” if they are the same)
As per claims 9 and 10, they have the same deficiencies as claim 1 above. Appropriate corrections are required.
As per claims 2-8, they depend from rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies thereof and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandman JR et al. US 2013/0042201 (hereafter Sandman) in view of Yuan et al. US Pub 2023/0147061 (hereafter Yuan).
As per claim 1, Sandman teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method, comprising: at a system process of a computer system: receiving, from a first process of the computer system, a request to receive focus of the computer system, wherein the first process is different from the system process (para[0016, 0028, 0048-0049], the client application creates a request to transfer focus to the active window portion (to receive focus), and sends the request to the host application);
and in response to receiving the request to receive focus: in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, providing focus to the first process (para[0048-0049], if a policy (first criteria) of the host application allows the first window portion 220 (first process) to specify focus, the host application approves the request to transfer focus, making the application window portion to an active window portion);
and in accordance with a determination that a third process has not identified the first process in a request to provide focus and in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied, providing focus to the first process, wherein the third process is different from the first process and the system process (para[0048-0049], after user clicks the process of area 232 (third process), which does not identify the first window portion 220, and since the process of area 232 is not an area for receiving user input, the focus is given to the window portion 220 (first process), indicating a second criteria)).
Sandman does not explicitly teach in accordance with a determination that a second process has identified the first process in a request to provide focus, providing focus to the first process, wherein the second process is different from the first process and the system process.
However, Yuan teaches in accordance with a determination that a second process has identified the first process in a request to provide focus, providing focus to the first process, wherein the second process is different from the first process and the system process (para[0047, 0058], FIG. 3, system switches focus from the second application (currently has focus) to the first application when requested, where the second application identifies the request to go back to the first application when a user taps “back to merchant” button on the second application screen, thus the second application identifies the first application in the request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yuan’s teaching to Sandman’s invention in order to provide an application keepalive method to optimize a background application scanning and killing mechanism of an electronic device system, and improve use experience when a user performs an application switching operation (para[0006-0007]).
As per claim 2, Sandman and Yuan teach the method of claim 1, and Sandman teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria is different from the second set of one or more criteria (para[0032-0033, 0048-0049], the first criteria represented by the policy of the host application which determines whether to allow the client application to specify focus including new windows can only be created as standalone window and maximum number of windows that can be associated with the client application, and the second criteria is represented by whether or not the selected window portion is an area for receiving user input or not, if there is such area, then transfer focus to the requested window).
As per claim 3, Sandman teaches wherein the second set of one or more criteria includes the first set of one or more criteria (para[0032-0033, 0048-0049], when a request for transferring focus to the window portion 250 is received, determine whether the window portion has the user input area and approve based on the policy of the host application).
As per claim 4, Sandman teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria, the second set of one or more criteria, or a combination thereof includes: a set of one or more criteria that is satisfied in accordance with a determination that the computer system is in a particular state when the request to receive focus is received by the system process (para[0031-0033, 0048-0049], the policy specifies that each client application is allowed to request the creation of three new windows within the graphic display, and if the system does not allow a large number of windows within the display).
As per claim 5, Sandman teaches wherein providing focus to the first process includes: causing display, via a display generation component in communication with the computer system, of a user interface corresponding to the first process to overlay at least a portion of another user interface different from the user interface corresponding to the first process; or causing input, detected via one or more input devices in communication with the computer system, to be provided to the first process instead of a different process (para[0048-0049], when the focus is transferred to the requested window, the window portion of client application is able to receive keystrokes from the user, thus input provided to the first process).
As per claim 6, Yuan teaches wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied in accordance with a determination that the second process has focus when the request to receive focus is received by the system process (para[0047, 0058], FIG. 3, system keeps the first application alive if the system resource is sufficient and switches focus from the second application (currently has focus) to the first application when requested, where the second application identifies the request to go back to the first application when a user taps “back to merchant” button on the second application screen).
As per claim 7, Yuan teaches further comprising: in response to receiving the request to receive focus and in accordance with a determination that the second process has identified the first process in a request to provide focus and that the first set of one or more criteria is not satisfied, forgoing providing focus to the first process (para[0047, 0058], FIG. 3, system kills the first application if the system resource is insufficient, thus the first application is not alive to receive a focus from the second application, where the second application identifies the request to go back to the first application when a user taps “back to merchant” button on the second application screen).
As per claim 8, Sandman teaches further comprising: in response to receiving the request to receive focus and in accordance with a determination that the third process has not identified the first process in the request to provide focus and that the second set of one or more criteria is not satisfied, forgoing providing focus to the first process (para[0048-0049, 0055], after user clicks the process of area 232 (third process), which does not identify the first window portion 220, and if the policy of the host application has not met, then the request to transfer focus is denied).
As per claim 9, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it is a computer system claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cradick et al. US Pub 2015/0180943 teaches receiving focus requests to display applications, where each focus request associated with at least one application from the applications. Application context from metadata tags describing content of the application is received. User context associated with information about a status of a user interacting with the computer system is received. Display priority of the applications based on the application context and the user context is determined.
Kalathur et al. US Pub 2020/02333550 method is provided that receives a textual user input at a graphical user interface (GUI) that is displayed on a display screen. The GUI includes a number of windows that each correspond to a different application with one of the windows having the input focus. The approach determines an input context type for the received textual input and compares the input context type to application contexts that correspond to the applications being displayed in the windows. One of the applications is selected based on the comparison and the received textual user input is then directed to the window that corresponds to the selected application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMY EUNHYE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thur 9PM-4PM.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/TAMMY E LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights