DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the filing of 12/22/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-7 are pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ooba (2015/0378543) in view of Qui (2023/0273983.)
Claim 1, 7: Ooba discloses an information processing device comprising:
a processor configured to:
cause a first display state, in which a second screen (Fig. 5: 23, second screen’s TILE MENU tab), which is different from a first screen (Fig. 5: 22 operation screen) displayed on an operation screen (Fig. 5, desktop “screen”, i.e. the screen on which the 22 windows lays on top of, as evidenced by the minimize, maximize buttons in top right corner of the window), is displayed superimposed on at least a region at a rightmost part of the first screen (Fig. 5: 23), wherein an entire area of the second screen is opaque and obscures the display content of the region of the leftmost part of the first screen (Fig. 5: 23, content under the second screen’s TILE MENU tab isn’t shown, i.e. opaque),
as a result of accepting a user's operation (par. 43; Fig. 5, showing hand gesture for a swipe), cause a second display state, in which the display area of the second screen is enlarged (Fig. 5: from left figure to right figure showing enlargement), thereby overlaying the second screen on top of the entire area of the first screen (Fig. 5, showing TILE MENU overlaying the screen underneath it; par. 43, the tile menu 24 is displayed in such a manner as to cover the touch-panel operation screen 22.)
Ooba does not explicitly disclose:
(1) wherein the rightmost part is actually a leftmost part. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ooba such that it would slide in from the left, instead of right. One would have been motivated to make the modification because such a modification would be a mere design choice.
Ooba does not explicitly disclose:
(2) change a display mode of the second screen such that a change in display content occurring on the first screen becomes visible in a case in which display content of the first screen changes, thereby restoring the first display state by reducing the display area of the second screen.
Qiu discloses as similar information processing device for GUI, including:
in the second display state, change a display mode of the second screen such that a change in display content occurring on the first screen becomes visible in a case in which display content of the first screen changes (par. 168, notifications (e.g., banners that slide in, pop-up notifications, etc.) may be received while the device is in use (e.g., on the home screen or in another application,))
Ooba discloses the first display state, and in combination with Qiu, the combination teaches: thereby restoring the first display state (first display state as taught by Ooba: a second screen displayed on an operation screen displayed superimposed on at least a region at a rightmost part of the first screen, wherein an entire area of the second screen is opaque and obscures the display content of the region of the leftmost part of the first screen (see above)) by reducing (par. 168, notifications, as taught by Qiu would reduce the display area of the second screen by popping up over them) the display area of the second screen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ooba so as to provide the functionality of notifications from another screen (e.g. application.) One would have been motivated to modify Ooba with Qui so as to notify the user about alerts from another application that at the present could not be readily seen otherwise.
Claim 2: Ooba and Qui disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to cause display of the second screen so as to cover the first screen with the second screen by progressively enlarging a display area of the second screen, as a result of accepting the operation of the user (Ooba, Fig. 5: from left figure to right figure showing enlargement.)
Claim 4: Ooba and Qui disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change the display mode of the second screen by gradually reducing the display area of the second screen in a case in which the display content of the first screen changes (Qui, par. 168, banners that slide in.)
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ooba (2015/0378543) in view of Qui (2023/0273983) and in further view of Heikes (20110107257.)
Claim 5: Ooba and Qui disclose the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Ooba does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to change the display mode of the second screen such that a change in display content occurring on the first screen becomes visible in a case in which an operation input on the second screen is no longer accepted due to occurrence of an event.
Heikes discloses a similar information processing device, including: wherein the processor is configured to change the display mode of the second screen such that a change in display content occurring on the first screen becomes visible in a case in which an operation input on the second screen is no longer accepted due to occurrence of an event (when a notification of a new message is received, the first window (second screen) is deactivated ("input … no longer accepted"), and the message is displayed after a delay in step 312; see par. 27-28, 31. Deactivation of the window means that input is no longer received; see par. 39].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ooba’s teachings to incorporate the teachings of Heikes' notification delay. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings so as to prevent inadvertently entering input into the wrong window, as taught by Heikes (par. 39.)
Claim 6: Ooba Qui and Heikes disclose the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured not to change a display mode of the second screen in a case in which an operation input on the second screen can be received even when the event occurs (Qui par. 168, a user may write directly on the notification without opening up the application associated with the notification.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that while Qiu slides in the notification, the claims recite reducing the display area of the second screen to restore it to the first display state. This allows the user to fully perceive the first screen with its altered display content, unlike a simple slide-in notification.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as now amended, require restoring the first display state by reducing the display area of the second screen. However, this isn’t the same as allowing the user to fully perceive the first screen with its altered display content as argued by the Applicant. The first display state, as taught by Ooba, requires the following: a second screen displayed on an operation screen displayed superimposed on at least a region at a rightmost part of the first screen, wherein an entire area of the second screen is opaque and obscures the display content of the region of the leftmost part of the first screen. This definition still fits what is taught by the combination of Ooba and Qui.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Collins (2007/0157320) slide out panel.
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 ANDREY BELOUSOV whose telephone number is (571) 270-1695 and Andrew.belousov@uspto.gov email. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Andrey Belousov/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2172
1/16/2026
Prosecution Insights