DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 15, and 17 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Admissions as Prior Art of the Instant Application’s Specification (hereinafter “Shinozuka”)1 in view of Jobs et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0149879, hereinafter “Jobs”).
As to independent claims 1 and 15, Shinozuka shows an information processing apparatus and a concomitant method [¶¶ 17-20] comprising:
at least one memory storing a program; and at least one processor that executes the stored program, which causes the at least one processor to control [¶¶ 16-20] display of a plurality of windows in an overlapping manner [e.g. a display may display windows in an overlapping manner (¶¶ 02-03 & 20)],
the plurality of windows including a first window for a first application [e.g. a first window for a first Universal Windows® Platform (UWP) application (¶¶ 16-20)] and
a second window for a second application to be started by the first application [e.g. a second window for a desktop and/or second UWP application (¶¶ 16-20)],
wherein, based on the second window having been displayed, the second application transmits, by starting the first application through protocol activation, information indicating that the second window has been displayed, and wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into [Shinozuka shows an operability to display the second window/application via protocol activation and correspondingly inform this occurrence to the first application that started said second window/application. Shinozuka also shows that new/second windows may be shown in one of two states: an active/foreground state and an inactive/”non-displayed” state (see ¶¶ 16-20 & 60).].
When conceding the state of the art in paragraphs 16-20, Shinozuka appears to only focus on one of the two alternatives: a scenario where a new/second window is shown in an inactive state, behind a first window. Thus, it is potentially conceded that Shinozuka does not appear to explicitly recite their only other pondered scenario/alternative, which is to assign a “non-displayed state” to the first window as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Jobs shows:
wherein, based on the second window having been displayed, the second application transmits, by starting the first application through protocol activation, information indicating that the second window has been displayed, and wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second application [Jobs shows “a user interface that provides a “single window” mode of operation. In essence, the single window mode of operation reduces user interface clutter by automatically minimizing all non-active windows of applications being executed, thereby leaving a single active task window on the display at any given time. A minimized window is a proxy representation of the original window and occupies a minimal amount of space, or in some cases no space, on the display. {…}” (¶ 27)
“{… the single window mode} functions as a system-wide preference that affects all applications running on the computer and their respective windows. When the control element 42 is activated to enable the single window mode, the window manager automatically minimizes all non-active windows of all applications, thereby leaving a single active task window visible on the display. Hence, when the user activates the button on “Window 5” in FIG. 3 to enable the single window mode of operation, the display goes from the state illustrated in FIG. 3 to that of FIG. 4.” (¶ 30)]
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of either Shinozuka alone and/or of Shinozuka and Jobs together before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the technique of hiding/”non-displaying” a first window upon being informed that a second window has been displayed into Shinozuka. The rationale for doing so would have been that Shinozuka had already conceded that “each window to be displayed via a desktop application started by a UWP application may be displayed in an active state or may be displayed in an inactive state” (Shinozuka: ¶ 20). Thus, it would have been “obvious to try”2 one of the only two identified display control alternatives because one skilled in the art would have chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. hiding an old window so that it does not interfere with a newly displayed window). Additionally/alternatively, the rationale for doing so would have been that the technique taught by Jobs “manages the available space of a computer display in a manner which reduces clutter and confusion caused by multiple open windows. {and} As a result, the user is only presented with the window that relates to the current task of interest, and clutter provided by non-active tasks is removed” (Jobs: Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shinozuka and Jobs (hereinafter, the “Shinozuka-Jobs” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 1 and 15.
As to dependent claims 2 and 16, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the first application includes a universal application platform application [e.g. the first application may include a Universal Windows® Platform application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claims 3 and 17, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the first application starts the second application via a bridge framework [e.g. the first application starts the second application via Desktop Bridge (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claims 4 and 18, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the second application includes a desktop application [e.g. the second application may include a desktop application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claims 5 and 19, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the desktop application includes a launcher application [e.g. the desktop application may include a launcher application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claims 6 and 20, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the second application includes another universal application platform application [e.g. the second application includes another Universal Windows® Platform application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claim 7, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the first application performs control such that the first window is prevented from being closed during a period in which the first application is starting the second application [e.g. the first application performs control such that the first window remains open (albeit behind, and therefore is prevented from being fully closed) during a period in which the first application is starting the second application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claim 9, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the notification indicating that the second window has been displayed is transmitted to the first application through inter-process communication between the second application and the first application [e.g. the notification indicating that the second window has been displayed is transmitted to the first application through inter-process/API communication between the second application and the first application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to independent claim 10, Shinozuka shows an information processing apparatus [¶¶ 16-20] comprising:
at least one memory storing a program; and at least one processor that executes the stored program, which causes the at least one processor to control [¶¶ 16-20] display a plurality of windows in an overlapping manner [e.g. a display may display windows in an overlapping manner (¶¶ 02-03 & 20)],
the plurality of windows including a first window for a first application [e.g. a first window for a first Universal Windows® Platform (UWP) application (¶¶ 16-20)],
a second window for a second application to be started by the first application [e.g. a second window for a second/launcher application to be started by the first/UWP application (¶¶ 16-20)], and
a third window for a third application to be started by the second application [e.g. a third window for a third/desktop application to be started by the second/launcher application (¶¶ 16-20)],
wherein, based on the third window having been displayed, the third application transmits, by starting the first application through protocol activation, information indicating that the third window has been displayed, and wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a [Shinozuka shows an operability to display the third window/application via protocol activation and correspondingly inform this occurrence to the first application that started said third window/application. Shinozuka also shows that new/third windows may be shown in one of two states: an active/foreground state and an inactive/”non-displayed” state (see ¶¶ 16-20 & 60).].
When conceding the state of the art in paragraphs 16-20, Shinozuka appears to only focus on one of the two alternatives: a scenario where a new/third window is shown in an inactive state, behind a first window. Thus, it is potentially conceded that Shinozuka does not appear to explicitly recite their only other pondered scenario/alternative, which is to assign a “non-displayed state” to the first window as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Jobs shows:
wherein, based on the third window having been displayed, the third application transmits, by starting the first application through protocol activation, information indicating that the third window has been displayed, and wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the third application [Jobs shows “a user interface that provides a “single window” mode of operation. In essence, the single window mode of operation reduces user interface clutter by automatically minimizing all non-active windows of applications being executed, thereby leaving a single active task window on the display at any given time. A minimized window is a proxy representation of the original window and occupies a minimal amount of space, or in some cases no space, on the display. {…}” (¶ 27)
“{… the single window mode} functions as a system-wide preference that affects all applications running on the computer and their respective windows. When the control element 42 is activated to enable the single window mode, the window manager automatically minimizes all non-active windows of all applications, thereby leaving a single active task window visible on the display. Hence, when the user activates the button on “Window 5” in FIG. 3 to enable the single window mode of operation, the display goes from the state illustrated in FIG. 3 to that of FIG. 4.” (¶ 30)]
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of either Shinozuka alone and/or of Shinozuka and Jobs together before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the technique of hiding/”non-displaying” a first window upon being informed that a third window has been displayed into Shinozuka. The rationale for doing so would have been that Shinozuka had already conceded that “each window to be displayed via a desktop application started by a UWP application may be displayed in an active state or may be displayed in an inactive state” (Shinozuka: ¶ 20). Thus, it would have been “obvious to try”3 one of the only two identified display control alternatives because one skilled in the art would have chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. hiding an old window so that it does not interfere with a newly displayed window). Additionally/alternatively, the rationale for doing so would have been that the technique taught by Jobs “manages the available space of a computer display in a manner which reduces clutter and confusion caused by multiple open windows. {and} As a result, the user is only presented with the window that relates to the current task of interest, and clutter provided by non-active tasks is removed” (Jobs: Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shinozuka and Jobs (hereinafter, the “Shinozuka-Jobs” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 10.
As to dependent claim 11, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the first application includes universal application platform application [e.g. the first application may include a Universal Windows® Platform application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claim 12, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the first application starts the second application via a bridge framework [e.g. the first application starts the second application via Desktop Bridge (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claim 13, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the second application includes a launcher application [e.g. the second application includes a launcher application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claim 14, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein the third application includes a desktop application [e.g. the third application may include a desktop application (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20)].
As to dependent claim 21, Shinozuka-Jobs further shows:
wherein a window that the second application displays is presented in either an active state or an inactive state, depending on limitations of an operating system (OS) [e.g. a window that the second application displays is presented in either an active state or an inactive state, and these (and all other functionalities) depend on the limitations of the operating system of the computer in question (Shinozuka: ¶¶ 16-20).].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
Sirpal; Sanjiv et al.
US 20120084726 A1
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
Butner; Christopher R. et al.
US 20140372506 A1
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
Mansfield, Steven M et al.
US 20050071776 A1
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
Ingram, Gerald W. et al.
US 20020052890 A1
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
Ingram, Gerald W. et al.
US 20050193090 A1
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
MATTHEWS; DAVID A. et al.
US 20090183107 A1
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
Laurent; Sonia et al.
US 20230075660 A1
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
Betrisey; Christian J. et al.
US 5959625 A
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
Sirpal; Sanjiv et al.
US 20120084726 A1
“wherein the first application performs display control to put the first window into a non-displayed state, based on receiving the information indicating that the second/third window has been displayed, by being started through the protocol activation from the second/third application.”
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
1 Paragraphs 02-03, 16-20, & 60 of the Specification identify the work of another as prior art, and therefore are admissions which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP § 2129: “Admissions as Prior Art.”
2 [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
3 [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).