DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received 03/24/2026 for 18487450. Claims 1-13 are presented.
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new and/or updated citations used in the current rejection of record under Hu in view of Ryu in response to the newly amended limitations, including at least displaying an enlarged display area at a camera hole position as disclosed in Ryu [Figs. 9E, 9H, para 0223-0225, 0242-0245].
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-13 are rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “system … adapted to execute []” and “monitoring element … to generate []” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure ("system 120 is a computer system, including software and hardware… [t]he hardware part includes a central processing unit and a memory" [0018], "the monitoring element 140 is a sensing element disposed on a main board" [0020]) described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20190235575 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20180017996 A1).
As to claim 1, Hu discloses a display control method, adapted to an electronic device, wherein the electronic device has a system, a monitoring element, and a display screen [Fig. 1, para 0020, 0029-0030, 0036, electronic device (read: system) includes processor executing auxiliary system (read: monitor element) providing operating system functions, and display screen], the system has a program list and is adapted to execute an application program [para 0028-0030, 0034, device stores list of names of applications executed by processor], the monitoring element monitors a status of the system to generate system information [Figs. 1, 4, para 0030-0031, 0036, 0038-0039, processor executes system module (read: monitoring element) storing settings (read: status) of auxiliary operating system functions], the display screen has a display region with a first side and a second side opposite to the first side [Figs. 2-3, para 0022-0024, display screen includes display screen area (read: display region) including a first side and opposite side as shown in Figures 2 and 3], and an opening is provided at a position adjacent to the first side [Figs. 2-3, para 0021-0024, display screen includes non-touch display area as shown adjacent to display screen side as shown in Figures 2 and 3], and the display control method comprises:
starting the application program [para 0040, execute application];
determining whether the application program is within the program list [para 0038, 0045-0046, determine whether current application is one of applications set as requiring auxiliary functions];
when the application program is within the program list, presenting an image generated by the application program corresponding to the second side [Fig. 6, para 0040-0041, 0043, 0045-0047, 0058, display application interface (read: generated image) in display screen after determining application is one requiring auxiliary functions, where application interface shares edge with (read: close) opposite side of display screen as shown in Figure 6], and generating an auxiliary display region at a position on the display screen corresponding to the opening [Fig. 9, para 0058, 0060-0062, 0064, generate second application interface (read: auxiliary display region) in display screen sharing edge (read: at position) with non-touch display area]; and
presenting all or a part of the system information in the auxiliary display region [Fig. 9, para 0036, 0060-0062, 0064, display list of auxiliary functions including operating system functions in second application interface].
However, Hu does not specifically disclose wherein the auxiliary display area is located at a position on the display screen not occupied by the image, and wherein the opening is totally surrounded by the auxiliary display area.
Ryu discloses
wherein the auxiliary display area is located at a position on the display screen not occupied by the image [Figs. 9E, 9H, para 0223-0225, 0242-0245, display alarm on enlarged display area (read: auxiliary display area) outside of application screen (read: image) displayed on main area of apparatus full screen], and
wherein the opening is totally surrounded by the auxiliary display area [para 0225, 0245, display enlarged area at hole position].
Hu and Ryu are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the defined auxiliary display region as disclosed by Hu with an auxiliary display located on a display screen not occupied by an image and surrounding an opening as disclosed by Ryu with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hu as described above to provide natural screen usability [Ryu, para 0011].
As to claim 2, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 1, wherein the system information comprises one of [Fig. 9, para 0036, display list of operating system functions including network acceleration, note strikethrough indicates non-selected alternatives],
As to claim 3, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary display region is [a shape] [Fig. 9, para 0023, 0060, 0061, display second application interface including trapezoidal area].
However, Hu does not specifically disclose wherein "[a shape]" is "rectangular".
Ryu discloses wherein the auxiliary display region is rectangular [Fig. 9H, para 0245-0246, enlarged display area includes two long and parallel sides and two short and parallel sides].
Hu and Ryu are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a shape of an auxiliary display region as disclosed by Hu with a rectangular shape as disclosed by Ryu with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hu as described above to provide natural screen usability [Ryu, para 0011].
As to claim 4, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 3, wherein the auxiliary display region corresponds to a side shorter than another side of the display screen [Fig. 9, para 0049-0050, 0060-0061, display second application interface sharing edge of non-touch display area].
As to claim 5, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 1, wherein the opening is located at a [location] of the display range [Figs. 2-3, para 0021-0024, non-touch display area adjacent to display screen side as shown in Figures 2 and 3].
However, Hu does not specifically disclose wherein "a [location] of the display range" is "a corner of the display range".
Ryu discloses wherein the opening is located at a corner of the display range [Fig. 9H, para 0223-0225, 0245, apparatus screen includes camera hole arranged at end of display screen edge (read: corner)].
Hu and Ryu are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an opening adjacent to a display range as disclosed by Hu with an opening located at a corner of a display range as disclosed by Ryu with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hu as described above to provide natural screen usability [Ryu, para 0011].
As to claim 6, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 1, further comprising: defining [] the auxiliary display region according to the image [Fig. 9, para 0058, 0060-0061, generate second application interface including auxiliary functions set for first application interface].
However, Hu does not specifically disclose a background color of the auxiliary display region.
Ryu discloses defining a background color of the auxiliary display region according to the image [Figs. 9B-9C, para 0173-0176, determine background color of enlarged display area through analysis of main area].
Hu and Ryu are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the defined auxiliary display region as disclosed by Hu with defining a background color of an auxiliary display region as disclosed by Ryu with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hu as described above to provide natural screen usability [Ryu, para 0011].
As to claim 8, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 1, wherein the application program is a game program [para 0039-0040, game application].
As to claim 9, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device has a memory, and the memory stores display setting data corresponding to the application program [Figs. 1, 4, para 0028, 0033-0034, device includes memory storing setting module (read: display setting data) to set application].
As to claim 10, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 9, wherein the step of presenting all or a part of the system information in the auxiliary display region is: presenting all or a part of the system information in the auxiliary display region according to the display setting data [Fig. 9, para 0031, 0033-0036, 0038-0039, display list of auxiliary functions included in settings module].
As to claim 11, Hu and Ryu, combined at least for the reasons above, Hu discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a system, having a program list and adapted to execute an application program [Fig. 1, para 0028-0030, 0034, electronic device stores list of names of applications executed by processor];
a monitoring element, monitoring a status of the system to generate system information and transmit the system information back to the system [Figs. 1, 4, para 0030-0031, 0036, 0038-0039, processor (read: monitoring element) executes system module storing auxiliary function settings set by user of operating system functions and communicates auxiliary function settings to other device components];
a display screen, having a display range with a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, and an opening being provided at a position adjacent to the first side [Figs. 2-3, para 0021-0024, display screen includes display screen area (read: range) including a first side and opposite side with non-touch display area adjacent to display screen side as shown in Figures 2 and 3]; and
a display control unit, electrically connected to the system and the display screen [Fig. 1, para 0018, 0020-0022, electronic device including processor coupled to display screen], and configured to: perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 12, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 1, wherein … the widths of the image and the auxiliary display region corresponds to the width of the display region [Fig. 9, para 0060, 0064-0065, display application interface and second application interface with edges as displayed in display screen with edge as shown in Figure 9].
However, Hu does not specifically disclose wherein an addition of the widths of the image and the auxiliary display region corresponds to the width of the display region.
Ryu discloses an addition of the widths of the image and the auxiliary display region corresponds to the width of the display region [Figs. 9E, 9H, para 0223-0225, 0242-0245, total of enlarged display area including width and main area including width equal to apparatus full screen including width].
Hu and Ryu are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify widths of the image, auxiliary display region, and display region as disclosed by Hu with an addition of element widths corresponding to a width of another element as disclosed by Ryu with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hu as described above to provide natural screen usability [Ryu, para 0011].
As to claim 13, Hu and Ryu, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the electronic device according to claim 11 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 12 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Ryu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20150205451 A1).
As to claim 7, Hu discloses the display control method according to claim 6.
However, Hu and Ryu do not specifically disclose wherein the step of defining the background color of the auxiliary display region according to the image comprises: detecting an average color value of a range of the image adjacent to the auxiliary display region, and using a color corresponding to the average color value as the background color.
Lee discloses wherein the step of defining the background color of the auxiliary display region according to the image [Fig. 2, para 0158, 0161, set background color of semi-transmissive area (read: auxiliary display region) calculated from image data] comprises:
detecting an average color value of a range of the image adjacent to the auxiliary display region [Fig. 2, para 0158, 0161, 0168-0169, compute average color from colors (read: range) of image data overlapped by semi-transmissive area], and
using a color corresponding to the average color value as the background color [Fig. 2, para 0158, 0161, set background color of semi-transmissive area as contrasting with average color obtained from image data].
Hu, Ryu, and Lee are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the auxiliary display region as disclosed by Hu and Ryu with using a color corresponding to a detected average color value as a background color of the auxiliary display region as disclosed by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Hu and Ryu as described above to see data more easily and conveniently [Lee, para 0169].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daioku et al. (US 20190107943 A1) and Ning et al. (US 20200310627 A1) generally disclose displaying system information at a side of a display screen including an opening for an installed camera.
Dixon et al. (US 11599599 B1) generally discloses utilizing an average pixel value in a transparency effect for user interface elements.
Wu et al. (US 20220269405 A1) generally disclose displaying menu information in relation to hole punch or notch areas of a display screen.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights