DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 6/11/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1-14, 16-17, and 20-23 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 16-17 are independent.
Claims 15 and 18-19 are previously canceled.
Claims 1, 5, 16 and 17 are newly amended.
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 of this title, 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, 3-5, 16-17, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan; Sharlene et al. (hereinafter Yuan – US 20150363366 A1) in view of Morita, Koichi (hereinafter Morita – WO 2018216332 A1. Also see attached machine translation).
Independent Claim 1:
Yuan teaches:
A view displaying method, comprising:
displaying a content area (textual content split screen 514, ¶ 38 and fig. 5)
and a view area (slide image split screen 512, ¶ 38 and fig. 5)
in a document interface, (on an interface for viewing portions of document content, Abstract and ¶ 42)
wherein the view area is used for displaying one or more pieces of view information; (for displaying multiple slides, e.g., slide 3 of 14 is displayed in fig. 5, ¶ 41 and fig. 5)
and in response to a browse triggering operation on view information in the view area, displaying the view information in the view area in a first browse direction, (a user performs a horizontal swipe touch action on screen 512 to navigate to another slide, ¶ 39 and fig. 5. Since the another slide is navigated to on the basis of a horizontal action, it is interpreted that the view information displays the information “in a first browse direction”)
wherein the content area corresponds to a second browse direction different from the first browse direction; (screen 514 corresponds to a second browse direction different from the first browse direction [vertical direction], ¶¶ 40-41 and fig. 5.)
[…].
Yuan does not appear to expressly teach, but Morita teaches:
in response to a triggering operation on a control in the view area, adjusting the first browse direction of the view information to the second browse direction and adjusting layout information of the view information from first layout information to second layout information, wherein the second browse direction of the content area stays unchanged, the first layout information corresponds to the first browse direction, and the second layout information corresponds to the second browse direction (Morita describes an information processing device that adjusts a layout of elements in an index area between the top/bottom and right/left – horizontal/vertical directions, depending on whether the user’s touch operation indicates vertical or horizontal scrolling, to prevent screen limitations, Abstract. Only the index area 51 is adjusted in terms of layout and scrolling direction, as reflected in figs. 5 and 4A/4B. The arrangement change operation of the index area 51 can also be performed using “the data display area 52 of the index search screen 5” [in response to a triggering operation on a control in the view area], see ¶ 34 of Machine Translation).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Yuan to include in response to a triggering operation on a control in the view area, adjusting the first browse direction of the view information to the second browse direction and adjusting layout information of the view information from first layout information to second layout information, wherein the second browse direction of the content area stays unchanged, the first layout information corresponds to the first browse direction, and the second layout information corresponds to the second browse direction, as taught by Morita.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the display efficiency and flexible/selective display choices afforded by the method, Abstract and Translation ¶ 39.
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yuan further teaches:
wherein in response to the browse triggering operation on the view information in the view area, the displaying the view information in the view area in the first browse direction, comprises: in response to a leftward/rightward swipe browsing operation on the view information in the view area, leftward/rightward swiping in the view area to display remaining view information. (a swipe in the horizontal [leftward/rightward] direction will navigate to a new slide in the presentation that was not previously visible [remaining view information], ¶¶ 39 and 41 and fig. 5).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yuan further teaches:
wherein in response to the browse triggering operation on the view information in the view area, displaying the view information in the view area in the first browse direction, comprises: in response to a triggering operation on a browse control of the view information in the view area, updating and displaying, in the view area, remaining view information in the view. (a swipe in the horizontal direction will navigate to a new slide [updating and displaying] in the presentation that was not previously visible [remaining view information], ¶¶ 39 and 41 and fig. 5. The swipe operation is on the view area and controls the display to browse to other information [on a browse control of the view information in the view area], ¶ 39. While it’s a swipe gesture rather than a traditional button, it is a direct and intuitive command that causes the system to execute the corresponding function)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yuan further teaches:
wherein the layout information comprising at least one of a position relation between the pieces of view information or a position relation between the pieces of view information and the control. (a swipe in the horizontal direction will navigate to a new slide [adjusting layout information of the view information from first layout information to second layout information] in the presentation that was not previously visible, ¶¶ 39 and 41 and fig. 5. The swipe operation is on the view area and controls the display to browse to other information [on a control in the view area], ¶ 39. While it’s a swipe gesture rather than a traditional button, it is a direct and intuitive command that causes the system to execute the corresponding function)
Independent Claims 16-17:
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are directed to an electronic device and storage medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 21 and 23:
The rejection of claims 16 and 17 are incorporated. Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are directed to an electronic device and storage medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 3, and are rejected using similar rationale(s)
Claim(s) 2, 14, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 20150363366 A1) in view of Morita (WO 2018216332 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Ramanathan; Jairam et al. (hereinafter Ramanathan – US 20150378580 A1).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yuan does not appear to expressly teach, but Ramanathan teaches:
wherein: in response to portrait-screen viewing of the document interface, a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the view area is matched with a portrait-screen displaying size of the view area; and in response to landscape-screen viewing of the document interface, a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the view area is matched with a landscape-screen displaying size of the view area (the concept of displaying a number of simultaneous pieces of view information [simultaneously visible cards] as a function of a screen size and orientation of a display/user device, ¶¶ 57 , 66, and 72).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Yuan to include wherein: in response to portrait-screen viewing of the document interface, a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the view area is matched with a portrait-screen displaying size of the view area; and in response to landscape-screen viewing of the document interface, a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the view area is matched with a landscape-screen displaying size of the view area, as taught by Ramanathan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to adapt the visualizations to be effectively used in small or larger screens based on space available, Ramanathan ¶¶ 7-8 and 57.
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yuan does not appear to expressly teach, but Ramanathan teaches:
wherein in response to the browse triggering operation on view information in the view area, the displaying the view information in the view area in the first browse direction, comprises: determining a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the view area according to a viewing direction of a screen (the concept of displaying a number of simultaneous pieces of view information [simultaneously visible cards] as a function of a screen size and orientation of a display/user device, ¶¶ 57 , 66, and 72).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Yuan to include wherein in response to the browse triggering operation on view information in the view area, the displaying the view information in the view area in the first browse direction, comprises: determining a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the view area according to a viewing direction of a screen, as taught by Ramanathan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to adapt the visualizations to be effectively used in small or larger screens based on space available, Ramanathan ¶¶ 7-8 and 57.
Claims 20 and 22:
The rejection of claims 16 and 17 are incorporated. Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are directed to an electronic device and storage medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 2, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 20150363366 A1) in view of Morita (WO 2018216332 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hyoung; Da-Hye et al. (hereinafter Hyoung – US 20140189742 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yuan further teaches:
zoom-in triggering operation on the view information in the view area (pinching/expanding to resize image, ¶¶ 24 and 39)
Yuan does not appear to expressly teach, but Hyoung teaches:
that “in response to” this operation, “displaying, in a full-screen area, the one or more pieces of view information” (the concept of displaying content in a full screen in response to a zoom-in operation on the content, ¶ 133 and figs. 8-9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Yuan to include that “in response to” this operation, “displaying, in a full-screen area, the one or more pieces of view information”, as taught by Hyoung.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method by intuitively navigating to desired content by focusing on the content area, Hyoung ¶¶ 2 and 15.
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Yuan, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the zoom-in triggering operation on the view information in the view area comprises: a triggering operation on a zoom-in control associated with the view area in the document interface; or a double-click operation on the view area. (Yuan ¶¶ 24, 39 and 133 and figs. 8-9 and Hyoung ¶¶ 2 and 15. When implementing the zoom-in operation for full-screen transitioning is done via a pinch operation on “on a zoom-in control associated with the view area in the document interface”. While it is a multi-touch [pinch] gesture rather than a traditional button, it is a direct and intuitive command that causes the system to execute the corresponding function.)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yuan does not appear to expressly teach, but Hyoung teaches:
the view information is displayed in a full-screen mode (the concept of displaying content in a full screen in response to a zoom-in operation on the content, ¶ 133 and figs. 8-9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Yuan to include the view information is displayed in a full-screen mode, as taught by Hyoung.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method by intuitively navigating to desired content by focusing on the content area, Hyoung ¶¶ 2 and 15.
Yuan, as modified, further teaches:
further comprising: in response to a triggering operation on a control in a full-screen area, adjusting the second browse direction of the view information to the first browse direction, and/or adjusting a key content of the view information from first displaying information to second displaying information, the key content comprising at least one of an image content of the view information or a text content of the view information. (in response to a swipe operation [a triggering operation on a control], the user interface adjusts to display content, like a slide, that was not previously displayed [adjusting a key content of the view information from first displaying information to second displaying information, the key content comprising at least one of an image content of the view information or a text content of the view information], Yuan ¶ 36. While it’s a swipe gesture rather than a traditional button, it is a direct and intuitive command that causes the system to execute the corresponding function).
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yuan further teaches:
zoom-in triggering operation “on the view information in the view area” (pinching/expanding to resize image, ¶¶ 24 and 39)
Yuan does not appear to expressly teach, but Hyoung teaches:
“further comprising: in response to a viewing operation” on the target view information, “performing full-screen display on the target view information” (the concept of displaying content in a full screen in response to a zoom-in operation on the content [viewing operation], ¶ 133 and figs. 8-9).
and in response to a triggering operation on a target function entry on the target view information, starting the target function. (while viewing the content, other options, such as, play, pause or navigate to another section, is displayed, ¶ 78)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Yuan to include “further comprising: in response to a viewing operation” on the target view information, “performing full-screen display on the target view information” and “in response to a triggering operation on a target function entry on the target view information, starting the target function”, as taught by Hyoung.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method by intuitively navigating to and controlling desired content by focusing on the content area, Hyoung ¶¶ 2, 15 and 78.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 20150363366 A1) in view of Morita (WO 2018216332 A1), and Hyoung (US 20140189742 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ramanathan (US 20150378580 A1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Yuan, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Ramanathan teaches:
wherein in response to the zoom-in triggering operation on the view information in the view area, the displaying, in the full-screen area, the one or more pieces of view information, comprises: in response to portrait-screen viewing of the document interface, matching a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the full-screen area with the portrait-screen displaying size; and in response to landscape-screen viewing of the document interface, matching a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the full-screen area with the landscape-screen displaying size (the concept of displaying a number of simultaneous pieces of view information [simultaneously visible cards] as a function of a screen size and orientation of a display/user device, ¶¶ 57 , 66, and 72).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Yuan to include wherein in response to the zoom-in triggering operation on the view information in the view area, the displaying, in the full-screen area, the one or more pieces of view information, comprises: in response to portrait-screen viewing of the document interface, matching a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the full-screen area with the portrait-screen displaying size; and in response to landscape-screen viewing of the document interface, matching a number of pieces of the view information displayed in the full-screen area with the landscape-screen displaying size, as taught by Ramanathan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to adapt the visualizations to be effectively used in small or larger screens based on space available, Ramanathan ¶¶ 7-8 and 57.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 20150363366 A1) in view of Morita (WO 2018216332 A1), and Hyoung (US 20140189742 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ma; Miaokui et al. (hereinafter Ma – US 20170249925 A1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Yuan, as modified, teaches:
further comprising: in response to a browse triggering operation on the view information in the full-screen area, displaying the view information in the full-screen area (Hyoung ¶¶ 2, 15, and 133 and figs. 8-9)
Yuan, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Ma teaches:
that the view information is displayed “in the second browse direction” (rotating a content that has been loaded to full screen playing, so as to switch from a vertical style to horizontal style display, ¶ 43. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implement Ma to Yuan, as previously modified, rotating the content in the view information would also switch the browse direction.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Yuan to include that the view information is displayed “in the second browse direction”, as taught by Ma.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the visual experience offered by the method, Ma ¶ 3.
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Yuan, as modified, further teaches:
wherein in response to the browse triggering operation on the view information in the full-screen area, the displaying the view information in the full-screen area in the second browse direction, comprises: in response to an upward/downward swipe browsing operation on the view information in the full-screen area, upward/downward swiping in the full-screen area to display remaining view information. (as explained for claim 9, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implement Ma to Yuan, previously as modified, rotating the content in the view information would also switch the browse direction. As such, the swiping to display additional information would switch from horizontal left-right swiping, to vertical upward/downward swiping [in response to an upward/downward swipe browsing operation on the view information in the full-screen area, upward/downward swiping in the full-screen area to display remaining view information])
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Yuan, as modified, further teaches:
wherein in response to the browse triggering operation on the view information in the full-screen area, the displaying the view information in the full-screen area in the second browse direction, comprises: in response to a triggering operation on a browse control of the view information in the full- screen area, updating and displaying, in the full-screen area, remaining view information. (as explained for claim 9, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implement Ma to Yuan, as previously modified, rotating the content in the view information would also switch the browse direction. A swipe gesture will navigate to a new slide [updating and displaying] in the presentation that was not previously visible [remaining view information], ¶¶ 39 and 41 and fig. 5. The swipe operation is on the view area and controls the display to browse to other information [on the view information in the view area], ¶ 39. While it’s a swipe gesture rather than a traditional button, it is a direct and intuitive command that causes the system to execute the corresponding function)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 103 arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Herz; William S. US 20090160933 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing the main viewing area and navigation viewing areas are presented on a display monitor and a user can navigate perspectives by triggering replacement of or a change in the content perspective presented in a viewing area (e.g., replacing content perspective in the main viewing area with content perspective from a selected navigation viewing area, causing a movement, rotation or different arrangement in a navigation presentation, etc.), ¶ 22 and fig. 1A.
Cranfill; Elizabeth C. et al. US 10462420 B2, is pertinent to claims 2, 8, 14, 20 and 22 for disclosing detecting an orientation of the first mobile device; displaying a first number of the plurality of second selectable UI items when the orientation of the first mobile device is in a portrait orientation; and displaying a second number of the plurality of second selectable UI items in response to detecting a change in the orientation of the first mobile device from the portrait orientation to a landscape orientation, wherein the second number of the plurality of second selectable UI items is greater than the first number of the plurality of second selectable UI items, Cranfill Claim 10.
Yan; Yulin US 20230221862 A1, is pertinent to claim 14 for disclosing switching a viewing direction, based on a trigger operation, ¶ 132.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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 at (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 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights