DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The RCE filed on 04/28/26. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 16 are independent claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6, 12, 14, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy, III et al. (US 2022/0191594 A1, hereinafter Devoy) in view of Figueredo de Santana et al. (US 2020/0272717 A1; hereinafter Figueredo de Santana) further in view of Walkin et al. (US 2020/0326839 A1; hereinafter Walkin).
As to claim 1, Devoy teaches:
An information interaction method (see Figs. 10-12 and ¶ 0069), comprising:
displaying interaction information in a first interface of a first program (see Fig. 4 and ¶ 0060-0062; shopping interface icon displayed in the input area 412 of the livestream interface; the shopping interface icon is selectable/interactive);
invoking a second program interface in response to an invocation signal being triggered by the interaction information (see Fig. 4-5 and ¶ 0060-0063; the shopping interface 504 can be opened by selecting the shopping interface icon from the user input area 412);
initiating a second program by invoking the second program interface, and displaying the second program in a display panel (see Fig. 4-5 and ¶ 0060-0063; the shopping interface 504 can be opened by selecting the shopping interface icon from the user input area 412); and
operating or switching the second program (see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0062-0063; the shopping interface 504 is displayed and the user can select or tap on the items displayed on the shopping interface to receive more information and/or to place an item into a shopping cart associated with the user).
As rejected above, invoking and initiating are used interchangeable in the process of opening and displaying the user interface of the second program (i.e., shopping interface). Additionally, if invoking and initiating process are interpreted as separate processes (which is not specific/required by the claim), Figueredo de Santana is relied upon for teaching the deficiencies. Specifically, Figueredo de Santana discloses a method for access control (see ¶ 0003) comprising: invoking a second program interface in response to an invocation signal being trigged (see ¶ 0071-0073; in response to the user requesting access to a secured functionality provided by the user…when the user 206 interacts with the display 204c of the user device and starts up the mobile bank application {~second program interface}, the mobile banking application invokes, via communication network 116, the access control program 110a, 110b to challenge the authentication of the user 206 to determine if the user 206 is the authorized user with adequate permissions to interact with the mobile banking application); initiating a second program by invoking the second program interface (See ¶ 0095-0096; if the access control program 110a, 110b determines that the authentication criteria are met at 416, then the access control program 110a, 110b authenticates the user at 420. In one embodiment, the access control program 110a, 110b may unlock the third-party application (e.g., mobile banking application) to provide the user 206 with access to a secured functionality of the third-party application; the access control program 110a, 110b authenticates the user 206 and unlocks the mobile banking application for access by the user 206. See ¶ 0073; the user can interact with the user if authorized).
Both references are related to accessing functionality of a second program; 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 Devoy with the teachings of Figueredo de Santana to provide a method to enable the user to access the second program as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Figueredo de Santana of providing a mechanism to improve the technical field of authentication by detecting that an end user is authorized to access a secured computing functionality; thereby preventing wrongful authentication of an unauthorized user exploiting spoofing techniques (Figueredo de Santana: see ¶ 0022).
Devoy/Figueredo de Santana do not expressly teach: wherein a plurality of second programs are simultaneously displayed side by side in a same display panel.
Walkin is relied upon for teaching the deficient limitations. Specifically, Walkin discloses wherein a plurality of second programs are simultaneously displayed side by side in a same display panel (see Fig. 4E1 and ¶ 0200; “split-screen mode” refer to a mode in which at least two applications are simultaneously displayed side-by-side on the display 112, and in which both applications may be interacted with (e.g., an email application and an instant messaging application are displayed in a split-screen mode in FIG. 4E1). The split-screen mode is also referred to as a “side-by-side” display configuration, or a “split-screen” display configuration).
The references, each is related to a graphical user interface. 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 Devoy/Figueredo de Santana to include the well-known GUI features disclosed in Walkin for displaying multiple programs simultaneously as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Walkin that to provide the user the ability to multitask and swap between applications; thus, enhance user experience with the user interface of the live stream field (Walkin see ¶ 0003).
As to claim 16, claim 16 is directed to an electronic device comprising a memory, configured to stored computer-readable instructions; and a processor, configured to execute the computer-readable instructions, so that the electronic device implements an information interaction method as claimed in claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (Devoy: see Fig. 14 and ¶ 0103-0122).
As to claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions, wherein the computer-readable instructions upon execution by a computer, cause the computer to implement the method of claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale (Devoy: see Fig. 14 and ¶ 0103-0122).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further teach: wherein after invoking the second program interface and before initiating the second program by invoking the second program interface, the method further comprises: dividing a certain area in the first interface as the display panel, and wherein the display panel serves as a display area of the second program (Devoy: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0062-0064; the display may be split or otherwise separated such that a first portion of the display may present the shopping interface 504 and a second portion of the display may present the content of the live stream event concurrently with the shopping interface 504).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further teach:
wherein the invoking a second program interface in response to an invocation signal being triggered by the interaction information, comprises:
determining whether the invoking is valid (Devoy: see ¶ 0057; a user may need to provide confirmation, double-confirmation, authentication, or other suitable types of verification before proceeding with the particular action, and the action may not be complete until such verification is provided. Figueredo de Santana: see ¶ 0089; determines if the authentication criteria met. See ¶ 0073; When the user 206 interacts with the display 204c of the user device 202 and starts up the mobile banking application, the mobile banking application invokes, via communication network 116, the access control program 110a, 110b to challenge the authentication of the user 206 to determine if the user 206 is the authorized user with adequate permissions to interact with the mobile banking application); and
generating a valid invocation instruction in a case where the invoking is determined to be valid, and invoking the second program interface based on the valid invocation instruction (Figueredo de Santana: See ¶ 0073; When the user 206 interacts with the display 204c of the user device 202 and starts up the mobile banking application, the mobile banking application invokes, via communication network 116, the access control program 110a, 110b to challenge the authentication of the user 206 to determine if the user 206 is the authorized user with adequate permissions to interact with the mobile banking application. ¶ 0095; f the access control program 110a, 110b determines that the authentication criteria are met at 416, then the access control program 110a, 110b authenticates the user at 420. In one embodiment, the access control program 110a, 110b may unlock the third-party application (e.g., mobile banking application) to provide the user 206 with access to a secured functionality of the third-party application. In at least one embodiment, the access control program 110a, 110b may transmit (e.g., via communication network 116) a message or alert to the third-party 216 and/or the user 206 indicating that the authentication is completed successfully). Thus, combining Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further teach:
wherein the determining whether the invoking is valid comprises:
determining whether the invoking is valid according to embedded authentication information between the second program and the first program (Devoy: see ¶ 0057; a user may need to provide confirmation, double-confirmation, authentication, or other suitable types of verification before proceeding with the particular action, and the action may not be complete until such verification is provided. Figueredo de Santana: see ¶ 0071-0073; the access control program 110a, 110b may be integrated into the third-party application as an application programming interface (API), plugin, extension, or any suitable module); and
wherein in response to the embedded authentication information between the second program and the first program being present, the invoking is valid, and in response to the embedded authentication information between the second program and the first program being absent, the invoking is invalid (Figueredo de Santana: ¶ 0093; If the access control program 110a, 110b determines that the authentication criteria are not met at 416, then the access control program 110a, 110b registers the failed authentication at 418 and returns to 412 to request a different random gesture challenge….the access control program 110a, 110b may cause the user device 202 to lock out the user 206 (e.g., from the third-party application) after a pre-determined number of failed authentications attempts which may be set by the third-party). Thus, combining Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin would mee the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further teach: wherein the first program is a livestream program, a game program, or a video program, and the first interface of the first program is a livestream interface, a game interface, or a video interface (Devoy: see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0062; streaming content of the event in the content area 506).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further teach the limitations: wherein the display panel is allowed for position dragging in accordance with a content distribution in the first interface of the first program, and a position after being dragged is any position in the first interface (Walkin: Figs. 4A12-4A13 and see ¶ 0215; window 4020 is dragged to a different position). Thus, combining Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin would mee the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further teach: wherein the display panel is allowed to be set to be one or more than one (Devoy: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0062-0063; the display may be split or otherwise separated such that a first portion of the display may present the shopping interface 504 and a second portion of the display may present the content of the live stream event concurrently with the shopping interface 504).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further teach: wherein the second program comprises a third program and a fourth program, the third program is initiated in the display panel based on the invoking, the fourth program is an associated program of the third program, and the fourth second program is initiated by an invocation of the third program in a popover (Devoy: see Fig. 7 and ¶ 0066-0067; third program is shopping cart which is invoked by shopping cart or bag, fourth program is checkout which is invoked by selecting “proceed to checkout”).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2019/0377459 A1; hereinafter Jeong).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 6 is additionally rejected under Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, Walkin, and Jeong. The limitation "position dragging” is a well-known GUI feature as illustrated by Jeong. Specifically, Jeong discloses wherein the display panel is allowed for position dragging in accordance with a content distribution in the target interface of the first program, and a position after being dragged is any position in the target interface (Jeong: see Fig. 5B and ¶ 0114-0115; when receiving an event for selecting the split window 570 and then moving it (e.g., a drag event for moving the split window 570 to an area where the window 591 is placed), the display control module 170 may change the position of the split window 570).
The references, each is related to a graphical user interface. 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 Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin to include the well-known GUI features disclosed in Jeong for allowing a panel to be dragged position as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Jeong of allowing a display panel to be positioned in a location of a display screen using drag input; thus, enhance user experience with the user interface of the live stream field (Jeong: see ¶ 0022).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin do not disclose, but Jeong is relied upon for teaching the limitations: wherein the display panel has a transparency in the target interface of the first program, and the transparency is allowed to be adjusted in a range from 0 to 100 (Jeong: see ¶ 0063; When at least part of a selected item overlaps another window, due to movement of a selected item, an area where the selected item overlaps the other window may be highlighted, or at least one of the color, contrast, saturation, and transparency of a specified area may be changed and displayed. ¶ 0103; the item 413 may be an image obtained by adjusting the transparency of the selected item 412). Thus, combining Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/ Walkin/Jeong would mee the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 9-11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further in view of Baxter et al. (US 11051067 B1; hereinafter Baxter).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further teach: wherein the second program performs an embedded display and operation in the first program (Devoy: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0062-0063).
Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin do not teach, but Baxter is relied upon for teaching the limitations wherein the display panel serves as a display window of the second program, and a popover serves as an operation interface of the second program (Baxter: see Fig. 2B-2G and Col. 5, line 36 through Col. 6, line 26; interactive shopping overlay).
The references, each is related to a graphical user interface. 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 Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin to include the features disclosed in Baxter where second program operation is displayed on the overlay as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Baxter of allowing the user to interact within the overlay; thus, the user can operate the second program without redirecting the user away from the first program (Baxter: see Col. 2, lines 23-43).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, Walkin and Baxter further teach: wherein the second program is an e-commerce service program, a social program, or a game program (Devoy: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0062-0063; the shopping interface 504), and a user performs a shortcut operation on the second program through a popover of the display panel (Baxter: see Fig. 2B-2G and Col. 5, line 36 through Col. 6, line 26; interactive shopping overlay). Thus, combining Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/ Walkin /Baxter would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/Walkin/Baxter further teach: wherein a popover is a shortcut operation option of the second program; and wherein after a user performs an operation through the shortcut operation option, the popover is switched to another shortcut operation option (Devoy: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0062-0063; the shopping interface 504. (Baxter: see Fig. 2B-2G and Col. 5, line 36 through Col. 6, line 26; interactive shopping overlay). Thus, combining Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/Walkin/Baxter would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
As to claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/ Walkin/Baxter further teach: wherein the first program is a main program, the second program is a popover program, and the second program is displayed in the display panel in a form of a popover (Devoy: Baxter: see Fig. 2B-2G and Col. 5, line 36 through Col. 6, line 26; interactive shopping overlay. Baxter: see Fig. 2B-2G and Col. 5, line 36 through Col. 6, line 26; interactive shopping overlay). Thus, combining Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/Walkin/Baxter would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/Walkin/Baxter further teach: wherein the third program is a popover program, and the fourth program is a popover program (Devoy: Baxter: see Fig. 2B-2G and Col. 5, line 36 through Col. 6, line 26; interactive shopping overlay. Baxter: see Fig. 2B-2G and Col. 5, line 36 through Col. 6, line 26; interactive shopping overlay). Thus, combining Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/ Walkin/Baxter would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin further in view of YI et al. (US 2015/0205488 A1; hereinafter YI).
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Devoy, Figueredo de Santana, and Walkin do not appear to teach, but Yi is relied upon for teaching the limitations: wherein the display panel is allowed for adjusting a size in the target interface of the first program (YI: see Fig. 3a-3c and ¶ 0098-0100; If a command for decreasing a scale is received from a user, the controller 180 can sequentially change the scale from FIG. 3 (a) to (b) and from (b) to (c). In addition, if a command for increasing a scale is received from a user, the controller 180 can sequentially change the scale from FIG. 3 (c) to (b) and from (b) to (a). An example of the command decreasing the scale includes a pinch-out touch gesture input on the touch screen 151. An example of the command increasing the scale includes a pinch-in touch gesture input on the touch screen 151).
The references, each is related to a graphical user interface. 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 Devoy/Figueredo de Santana/Walkin to include the well-known GUI features disclosed in YI for allowing a display panel to be adjusted in size as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in YI of allowing a display panel to be resized based on user input; thus, enhance user experience with the user interface of the live stream field (YI: see ¶ 0098-0100).
Response to Arguments
With respect to 103 rejection, the Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as rejected supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
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 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights