DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 11/21/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of amendment, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ostrowska et al. (US 2006/0218581), hereinafter Ostrowska.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2008/0291327), hereinafter Jin, in view of Chang et al. (US 2022/0374136), hereinafter Chang, in view of Kuribayashi et al. (US 2012/0098852), hereinafter Kuribayashi, in view of Ostrowska.
As per claim 1, Jin teaches the following:
a method comprising:
detecting, by a processor of a display device an event associated with a picture-in-picture window associated with a first information handling system, wherein the display device includes a primary window . As Jin teaches in paragraph [0043], a display apparatus 200 receives PIP information based on whether the position of a pointing device overlaps with a pip region (event) from the information processing apparatus (processor) in operations 440;
in response to detecting the event, determining a new state of the picture-in-picture window based on the event and a current state of the picture-in-picture window. As Jin teaches in paragraph [0044], and corresponding Fig. 4, step 450, a state of the PIP is changed based upon the cursor location information, and would thus involve the current state, e.g., transparency on if cursor out of region and transparency off if cursor within region.
However, Jin does not explicitly teach of resizing the PIP. In a similar field of endeavor, Chang teaches of utilization of PIP’s (see paragraph [0212]. Chang further teaches the following:
resizing the picture-in-picture window from a first size resolution to a second size resolution based on the new state, and wherein the picture-in-picture window is disposed proximate to the primary window. As Chang teaches in paragraph [0237], and corresponding Fig. 6K, a PIP is provided with affordance 620-3, which when selected by the user, causes the PIP to “enlarge (e.g., to an expanded view, full-screen view, etc.)”. Chang further teaches in paragraph [0237], and corresponding Fig. 6K, that “content PiP 620 overlaying tiles in video conference interface 605” , i.e., the PiP is “proximate” the primary content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the PIP of Jin with the enlargement of Chang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the enlargement of Chang benefits users in allowing users to better view PIP content when desired, i.e., viewing the content in a larger display area with more resolution.
While Jin teaches of adjusting a transparency level of a PIP, Jin in view of Chang does not explicitly teach of adjusting transparency based upon a size of the PIP. In a similar field of endeavor, Kuribayashi teaches of a method of allowing a user to select images (see abstract) and creating PIP’s in said images (see Fig. 6). Kuribayashi further teaches the following:
altering transparency of the picture-in-picture window from a first transparency to a second transparency of the picture-in-picture window from a first transparency to a second transparency based on size of the picture-in-picture window, wherein the first transparency is associated with the second size resolution. As Kuribayashi teaches in paragraph [0065], and corresponding Fig. 6, a PIP window 62 may be set to be less transparent when small-sized and more transparent when large-sized.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the enlargement of PIP’s of Jin in view of Chang with the transparency dependent on size of Kuribayashi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such further modification because as Kuribayashi teaches in paragraph [0065], such size dependent transparency benefits users in not obstructing an underlying image as a PIP becomes larger.
Furthermore, Jin does not explicitly teach of different windows being associated with different devices. In a similar field of endeavor, Ostrowska teaches of creating PiP displays (see abstract). Ostrowska further teaches in paragraph [0046], and corresponding Figs. 9B and 11, a user may select to view currently presented information of a remote device in a PiP view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the PiP windows of Jin with the remote device views of Ostrowska. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Ostrowska teaches in paragraph [0006], such PiP windows benefit users in allowing the users to operate multiple content viewing devices.
Regarding claim 2, Jin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Jin further teaches the following:
a primary window is of a same size whether the picture-in- picture window is in the current state or in the new state. As Jin teaches in paragraphs [0005] and [0007], in the background of invention, known PIP functionality was that the PIP being a small screen superimposed over a larger screen, wherein the small screen hides a region of the larger screen. As the small screen is superimposed, and transparency of said screen is toggled on or off, the large screen (primary window) remains of a same size.
Regarding claim 7, Jin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Jin further teaches the following:
the picture-in-picture window is transparent when in a defocused mode. As Jin teaches in the abstract, when the cursor in not positioned within the PIP (defocused mode), the PIP is displayed transparently.
As per claim 10, Jin teaches the following:
an information handling system, comprising:
a processor, (see abstract, “processing apparatus”); and
a memory storing instructions, (see paragraph [0059]).
The remaining limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Jin teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 11 and 15 are substantially similar to those of claims 2 and 7 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 16, Jin teaches the following:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium to store instructions, (see paragraph [0059]).
The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 17, Jin teaches the medium of claim 16 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Chang in view of Kuribayashi as applied to claims 1, 10, and 16, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 2022/0101814), hereinafter Patel.
Regarding claim 3, Jin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jin does not explicitly teach of the event being a user pressing a control button. In a similar field of endeavor, Patel teaches of a method of presented a PIP overlay (see abstract). Patel further teaches the following:
the event is in response to a user pressing a control button. As Patel shows in Fig. 6, and corresponding paragraph [0046], control 608 may be utilized by a user to set a transparency level for a PIP window.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the transparency of a PIP of Jin with the transparency control of Patel. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such a control would benefit a user of Jin in allowing a user to more customize a view of the PIP in deciding exactly how transparent the Pip being presented is acceptable.
Regarding claim 8, Jin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jin does not explicitly teach of the event being based on a policy configured by a user. In a similar field of endeavor, Patel teaches of a method of presented a PIP overlay (see abstract). Patel further teaches the following:
the event is triggered based on a policy configured by a user. As Patel shows in Fig. 6, various controls of a PIP may be established by a user, such as enabling a “show PIP desktop” control, which is interpreted as encompassing a policy set by the user for a triggering event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the transparency of a PIP of Jin with the transparency control of Patel. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such a control would benefit a user of Jin in allowing a user to more customize the behavior of the PIP.
Regarding claim 12, Jin teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to those of claim 3 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, Jin teaches the medium of claim 16 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 18 are substantially similar to those of claim 3 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Chang in view of Kuribayashi as applied to claim 1, 10, and 16, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2003/0142109), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 4, Jin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jin does not explicitly teach of the event being a CPU utilization level. In a similar field of endeavor, Brown is directed to controlling the transparency of windows (see abstract). Brown further teaches the following:
the event is triggered based on a central processing unit utilization level. As Brown teaches in paragraph [0075], windows may be adjusted in transparency (similar to the state change of Jin) in response to resource utilization. Brown further teaches in paragraph [0044] that transparency percentage correlates with a resource utilization measurement for the CPU.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the event of Jin with the CPU utilization of Brown. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Brown teaches in paragraphs [0021] and [0022], such transparency causing events benefit a user in relaying to the user usage aspects without requiring the user to activate a monitoring application.
Regarding claim 13, Jin teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially similar to those of claim 4 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, Jin teaches the medium of claim 16 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to those of claim 4 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Chang in view of Kuribayashi as applied to claim 1, 10, and 16, and further in view of Harada et al. (US 10,712,940), hereinafter Hirada.
Regarding claim 5, Jin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jin does not explicitly teach of changing the state of a displayed object in response to detecting that a system is powered on. In a similar field of endeavor, Harada teaches of displaying and altering display parameters on user interfaces (see abstract). Harada further teaches the following:
the event is triggered in response to detecting that the first information handling system is powered on. As Harada shows in Fig. 26, steps S2303 and 2304, a display of a device may be updated based on a change of setting. Harada further shows in Fig. 24 that the operational state may be that of a “powered on” or “powered off” state and the display aspect may be changed in regards to color of the object, similar to the transparency of object as taught by Jin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the event of Jin with the powered state of Harada. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Harada teaches in column 4, lines 39-42, such power-driven events benefits users in visually distinguishing what devices are contributing to power usage of a desired area.
Regarding claim 6, Jin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jin does not explicitly teach of changing the state of a displayed object in response to detecting that a system is powered on. In a similar field of endeavor, Harada teaches of displaying and altering display parameters on user interfaces (see abstract). Harada further teaches the following:
the event is triggered in response to detecting that the first information handling system is powered off. As Harada shows in Fig. 26, steps S2303 and 2304, a display of a device may be updated based on a change of setting. Harada further shows in Fig. 24 that the operational state may be that of a “powered on” or “powered off” state and the display aspect may be changed in regards to color of the object, similar to the transparency of object as taught by Jin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the event of Jin with the powered state of Harada. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Harada teaches in column 4, lines 39-42, such power-driven events benefits users in visually distinguishing what devices are contributing to power usage of a desired area.
Regarding claim 14, Jin teaches the system of claim 10 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to those of claim 6 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, Jin teaches the medium of claim 16 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 5 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Chang in view of Kuribayashi as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lord et al. (US 2002/0071031), hereinafter Lord.
Regarding claim 9, Jin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jin does not explicitly teach of the event being a timeout. In a similar field of endeavor, Lord is directed to the use of PIP’s, (see paragraph [0018]). Lord further teaches the following:
the event is triggered by a timeout setting. As Lord teaches in paragraph [0028], and corresponding Fig. 3, upon a user not manually turning off a PIP, it is determined whether to hide the PIP based on a timeout value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the event of Jin with the timeout of Lord. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the timeout of Lord would benefit a user of Jin when a user may not have a cursor to hide/display a PIP, such as on a television display.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2008/0088744), controls for multiple PiPs.
Guzman Suarez et al. (US 2012/0092438), see Fig. 9.
Hosokawa (US 2018/0275814), moving and resizing PiPs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174