DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1/21/2026 and Request for Continued Examination filed 2/17/2026.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 14-23 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 8-13 of amendment, filed 1/21/2026, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Kim et al. (US 2014/0164966), hereinafter Kim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim.
As per claim 1, Kim teaches the following:
a method for interface switching, (see abstract), comprising:
in response to determining that a first interface is currently displayed in a preset application. As Kim teaches in paragraph [0109], and corresponding Fig. 3, a home execution space is provided (preset application) including multiple display interfaces such as a first interface 301,
receiving a swiping for the first interface and determining a target action area corresponding to the swiping, As Kim teaches in paragraph [0122], an application execution event may occur based upon user input. Kim further teaches in paragraph [0127], and corresponding Fig. 6B, an execution event may be that of a user touching a specific icon (target action area) and dragging in a predetermined direction, i.e., a “swipe”,
wherein an interface type of the first interface is a first type, the preset application comprises at least two interfaces of the first type. As Kim teaches in paragraph [0109], and corresponding Fig. 3, the home execution space 300 bay comprise a plurality of views 301 to 304, i.e., at least two interfaces of a same type, and
the first interface contains a first preset area and a second preset area. Kim teaches in paragraph [0181], and corresponding Figs. 16A-C, that an edge flick (first preset area) may cause a view switch between different interfaces of the launcher, and in paragraph [0127] of a drag event started on an icon to correspond to a launch command (second preset area); and
in response to the swiping, switching to display a target interface, wherein, in response to determining that the target action area is the first preset area and the first interface is comprised in a first portion of the at least two interfaces of the first type, the target interface is a second interface, an interface type of the second interface is the first type, and at least the second interface and the first interface are sequentially switchable by the swiping. As Kim teaches in paragraph [0181], and corresponding Figs. 16A-C, the user may utilize edge flicks to sequentially navigate different views of the launcher L, wherein the different views are interpreted as “at least two interfaces of the first type” and the first view is a “portion” of the overall launcher, and
in response to determining that the target action area is the second preset area or the first interface is comprised in a second portion of the at least two interfaces of the first type, the target interface is a third interface, and an interface type of the third interface is a second type, and the first type and the second type are different. As Kim teaches in paragraph [0127], and corresponding Fig. 6B, upon the user drag input beginning on an icon (second preset area), the target interface is that of execution screen 262 (third interface) which is of a different “type” than that of the launcher views.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kim further teaches the following:
wherein the at least two interfaces of the first type are sequentially switchable by the swiping. As Kim teaches in paragraph [0181], and corresponding Figs. 16A-C, the user may utilize edge flicks to sequentially navigate different views of the launcher L,
wherein the first portion of the at least two interfaces of the first type is switched to display an interface of the second type in response to determining that the target action area corresponding to the swiping is the first preset area, and wherein the second portion of the at least two interfaces of the first type is switch to display an interface of the second type in response to determining that the target action area corresponding to the swiping is the first preset area or the second preset area. Kim shows in Figs. 8A-D that dragging input may further be utilized to switch “portions”.
As per claim 12, Kim teaches the following:
an electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program, wherein the computer program is stored on the memory and is runnable on the processor, (see Fig. 1).
The remaining limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the device of claim 12 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to those of claim 7 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 22, Kim teaches the following:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, (see Fig. 1).
The remaining limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
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) 3, 14, 15, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1, 12, and 22, in view of Birnbaum et al. (US 2011/0264491), hereinafter Birnbaum.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kim teaches in paragraph [0127], and corresponding Fig. 6B, an execution event may be that of a user touching a specific icon (preset control) and dragging in a predetermined direction, wherein the icon is interpreted as being a defining “range” of the display area. However, Kim does not explicitly teach of a control being presented in the second preset area. Birnbaum teaches the following:
a first preset control in the first interface is displayed in the second preset area, and in response to determining that the target action area is the second preset area, an action starting point of the swiping falls within an associated range of a display area corresponding to the first preset control, and the associated range includes the display area. As Birnbaum teaches in paragraph [0062], and corresponding Figs. 2B and 2C, a sliding control 250 may be utilized, where a user must complete the control motion fully to accomplish an action. Further see Figs. 13 and 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the dragging of icons of Kim with the sliding control of Birnbaum. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Birnbaum teaches in paragraph [0063], utilizing the display control benefits users in allowing the user to cancel the input gesture before a threshold is reached.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the method of claim 2 as described above. However, as described above, Kim does not explicitly teach of a control. Birnbaum further teaches the following:
before switching to display the third interface, the method further comprising: controlling the first preset control to move and display within a second preset range corresponding to the second preset area by following the swiping. As Birnbaum shows in Fig. 13, and corresponding paragraph [0065], a box inside the control is moved corresponding to the user gesture and would thus move into a “second range” before completing the gesture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the dragging of icons of Kim with the sliding control of Birnbaum. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Birnbaum teaches in paragraph [0063], utilizing the display control benefits users in allowing the user to cancel the input gesture before a threshold is reached.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kim teaches the device of claim 12 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 14 and 15 are substantially similar to those of claims 2 and 3 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 23, Kim teaches the medium of claim 22 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 23 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 8, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 12, in view of Churikov et al. (US 2013/0300668), hereinafter Churikov.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kim further teaches the following:
the preset application is installed within a mobile terminal. See Fig. 1.
However, Kim does not explicitly teach of a gripping mode. Churikov teaches the following:
and the second preset area is associated with a gripping mode when a user grips the mobile terminal. As Churikov teaches in paragraphs [0056] and [0057], and corresponding Figs. 5a-5c, an element (such as the areas of Ding) may be positioned based upon grip characteristics of a device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the preset areas of Kim with the positioning based on grip of Churikov. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Churikov teaches in paragraph [0002], such grip positioning benefits users in that having controls at fixed positions may make it difficult to interact with said control depending on how a user holds a device.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ding teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. However, as described above,Kim does not explicitly teach of a gripping mode. Churikov further teaches the following:
determining a corresponding second preset area according to the gripping mode in which the user grips the mobile terminal, wherein the gripping mode comprises at least one of left hand gripping and right hand gripping. As Churikov shows in Figs. 5B and 5C, and corresponding paragraph [0057], an element may be positioned based upon the user gripping the device with a left or right hand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the preset areas of Kim with the positioning based on grip of Churikov. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Churikov teaches in paragraph [0002], such grip positioning benefits users in that having controls at fixed positions may make it difficult to interact with said control depending on how a user holds a device.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Ding does not explicitly teach of prompt information. Churikov further teaches the following:
before switching to display the third interface, further comprising:
displaying swiping prompt information within a first preset range corresponding to the second preset area, wherein the swiping prompt information includes at least one of swiping direction information and swiping result indication information, and the swiping result indication information is configured to indicate that it is about to switch to display the third interface. As Churikov shows in Fig. 13, a slide control is presented with a square that a user must drag to operate. This is interpreted as encompassing applicant’s “prompt” as the control indicates which direction a user must drag (swipe) to activate the control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the preset areas of Kim with the positioning based on grip of Churikov. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Churikov teaches in paragraph [0002], such grip positioning benefits users in that having controls at fixed positions may make it difficult to interact with said control depending on how a user holds a device.
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 20, Kim teaches the device of claim 12 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 16, 17, and 20 are substantially similar to those of claims 4, 5, and 8 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Churikov as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, and 17, and further in view of Birnbaum.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. However, Kim does not explicitly teach of a second preset control. Birnbaum teaches the following:
displaying a second preset control in the determined second preset area in the first interface, wherein, in response to determining that the target action area is a second preset area, an action starting point of the swiping falls within a display area corresponding to the second preset control. As Birnbaum teaches in paragraph [0062], and corresponding Figs. 2B and 2C, a sliding control 250 may be utilized, where a user must complete the control motion fully to accomplish an action. Further see Figs. 13 and 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the target area with threshold of Kim with the sliding control of Birnbaum. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Birnbaum teaches in paragraph [0063], utilizing the display control benefits users in allowing the user to cancel the input gesture before a threshold is reached.
Furthermore, Kim in view of Birnbaum does not explicitly teach of the control being determined based on the gripping mode. Churikov teaches the following:
the second preset control is determined based on the gripping mode in which the user grips the mobile terminal. As Churikov teaches in paragraphs [0056] and [0057], and corresponding Figs. 5a-5c, an element (such as the control of Ding in view of Birnbaum) may be positioned based upon grip characteristics of a device., wherein the position of the element is interpreted as encompassing the control “is determined based on the gripping mode”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the preset areas of Kim with the positioning based on grip of Churikov. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Churikov teaches in paragraph [0002], such grip positioning benefits users in that having controls at fixed positions may make it difficult to interact with said control depending on how a user holds a device.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the device of claim 12 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 18 are substantially similar to those of claim 6 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Churikov as applied to claims 1, 8, 12, and 20, and further in view of Mesquich Havilio (US 2020/0110513), hereinafter Havilio.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the method of claim 8 as described above. However, neither Kim nor Churikov teaches of swipe prompt information being displayed within a range in response to a touch action. In a similar field of endeavor, Havilio teaches of touch and drag controls similar to Churikov (see Fig. 3b). Havilio further teaches the following:
displaying the swiping prompt information within the first preset range of the second preset area comprising: in response to determining that a touch acting on the second preset area is detected, displaying the swiping prompt information within a preset range of the second preset area. As Havilio shows in the transition between Figs. 6a and 6b, and corresponding paragraphs [0043] and [0044], upon a user touching an initial control, a slide control is displayed in response to said touch which prompts the user for a specific swipe location and direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have further modified the control of Kim in view of Churikov with the prompting of Havilio. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such prompting benefits users in instructing the users exactly what action to perform instead of a single touch operation, thus increasing assurance that a desired action is performed.
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches the device of claim 20 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 21 are substantially similar to those of claim 9 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Conclusion
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