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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed on 05/29/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 13, 20 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Examiner Notes
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
Claims 1-4, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (“Pan”, US PG-Pub. 2015/0074589 A1) in view of Han et al. (“Han”, WO 2019/214476 A1) and Dieumegard et al. (“Dieumegard”, US 2011/0150412 A1).
Re-claim 1,
Pan teaches a display method for a terminal, comprising:
determining, based on the portrait-mode window configuration information, the application not supporting landscape-mode display ([0058, 0059]. Pan describes in paragraph [0058] as “… even though an application software only supports the portrait mode…”; and in paragraph [0059] as “…The application software of the force-layout type would not change its displaying content dynamically to fit the changes of window size and orientation”;
when the terminal is in a landscape mode, determining, based on a portrait-mode window configuration information, a landscape-mode display configuration of the application (Fig. 16C, [0049, 0063]. Pan describes in paragraph [0049] as “… a user may switch between the portrait mode and the landscape mode automatically through rotating the smart mobile device …”; and in paragraph [0063] as “…while the smart mobile device 2 is in a landscape mode … the application software can render the first window 43 (under portrait mode) … in a fixed width/height ratio”);
performing a display operation on the application based on the landscape-mode display configuration (Fig. 16C, [0063]. Pan describes “…while the smart mobile device 2 is in a landscape mode … the application software can render the first window 43 (under portrait mode) … in a fixed width/height ratio”).
Pan fails to teach:
wherein the resource file stores an orientation attribute of the application, and the portrait-mode window configuration information is configuration information in which a width of a display window of the application is less than a height of the display window.
However, Han teaches:
wherein the resource file stores an orientation attribute of the application, and the portrait-mode window configuration information is configuration information in which a width of a display window of the application is less than a height of the display window (page 4, paragraph 13. Han describes the “AndroidManifest.xml” resource file stores an orientation attribute under (android:screenOrientation=”landscape”) or (android:screenOrientation=”portrait”). The portrait-mode window configuration is inherency configured as width of a display window is less than a height of the display window as one known in the art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of Pan with the application’s manifest/configuration file’s setting display orientation teaching of Han to set the application’s display orientation for system.
Modified Pan fails to teach:
parsing a resource file of an application to obtain configuration information of the application.
However, Dieumegard teaches:
parsing a resource file of an application to obtain configuration information of the application ([0067]. Dieumegard describes the concept of parsing the configuration XML file (as resource file) to retrieve configuration information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the parsing the manifest/configuration file teaching of Dieumegard to retrieve the configuration information from the configuration resource file and allow the system selecting an appropriate configuration and avoid improper operations of applications that are configured for.
Re-claim 2,
In addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches in method of claim 1, Pan also teaches, wherein the determining the landscape-mode display configuration of the application based on the portrait-mode window configuration information of the application comprises:
determining, based on the portrait-mode window configuration information, whether the application supports multi-window display ([0057]. Pan describes “…the operating system switches between the full screen mode and the "dual-window mode"…”);
in response to determining that the application does not support multi-window display, determining a first landscape-mode configuration for the application, wherein the first landscape-mode configuration is a single-screen display configuration of the application ([0058]. Pan describes “Under the full screen mode, a user may choose the portrait mode or the landscape mode to use the smart mobile device randomly. By this, even though an application software only supports the portrait mode or the landscape mode, the user may still use the method disclosed therein to operate the application software without any problems”); and
in response to determining that the application supports the multi-window display, determining a second landscape-mode configuration for the application, wherein the second landscape-mode configuration is a split-screen display configuration of the application (Fig. 16C, [0063]. Pan describes “while the smart mobile device 2 is in a landscape mode and the screen 28 is in dual-window mode, by the method of the present invention, system can report the original landscape mode full window and the available window in dual-window mode to the application software so the application software can render the first window 43 (under portrait mode) put in the first displaying region 21 of the left portion of the screen 28 in a fixed width/height ratio”).
Re-claim 3,
In addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches in method of claim 2, Pan also teaches, wherein the determining the first landscape-mode configuration of the application comprises:
obtaining at least one commonly used window of the application; determining a primary window configuration corresponding to the portrait-mode window configuration information, and determining a secondary window configuration corresponding to the at least one commonly used window; and determining the first landscape-mode configuration of the application based on the primary window configuration and the secondary window configuration ([0061]. Pan describes “… the system would create a full screen image for this application software as if the device is in its full screen mode” corresponding to the claimed commonly used window, and “Then, the system would scale the full screen image so it would fit into the window and be put into the displaying region …” corresponding to the first landscape mode configuration).
Re-claim 4,
In addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches in method of claim 2, Pan also teaches the method, wherein the determining the second landscape-mode configuration of the application comprises:
determining a window quantity of to-be-displayed windows of the application; when the window quantity is one, determining that a center configuration in which a to-be-displayed window of the application is displayed in a center of a screen as the second landscape-mode configuration of the application ([0058, 0059]. Pan describes in paragraph [0058] as “Under the full screen mode, a user may choose the portrait mode or the landscape mode to use the smart mobile device randomly …” corresponding to single window of the application displaying in landscape mode configuration, and in paragraph [0059] as “…The application software of the auto-fit type would change its displaying content along with the change of window size (including change of size due to rotation) and based on the real window size” corresponding the single window is displayed in the center of a screen in landscape mode); and
when the window quantity is two or more, obtaining window parameter information, and determining the second landscape-mode configuration of the application based on the window parameter information (Fig. 22, [0080]. Pan describes the concept of deciding the window layout (i.e. landscape mode) and dual-window mode and determining the windows size to be displayed in that dual-window).
Re-claim 13,
It is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 14,
in addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches in claim 13, claim 14 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 15,
in addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches in claim 14, claim 15 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 16,
in addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches in claim 14, claim 16 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 20,
It is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Han and Dieumegard, and further in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”, CN 112130742 B).
Re-claim 5,
Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches the method in claim 4, but Pan fails to teach a method, further comprising: after determining that the second landscape-mode configuration of the application is the center configuration in which the to-be-displayed window of the application is displayed in the center of the screen, in response to receiving a boundary edition operation performed by a user, modifying the center configuration according to the boundary edition operation, and obtaining a modified configuration; and determining the modified configuration as the second landscape-mode configuration of the application.
However, Wang teaches:
after determining that the second landscape-mode configuration of the application is the center configuration in which the to-be-displayed window of the application is displayed in the center of the screen, in response to receiving a boundary edition operation performed by a user, modifying the center configuration according to the boundary edition operation, and obtaining a modified configuration; and determining the modified configuration as the second landscape-mode configuration of the application ([0177]. Wang describes “…The size and position of the window can be modified by dragging the window by the user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the modifying application window boundaries, size and locations by user teaching of Wang to modify window layout to enhance GUI viewing.
Re-claim 6,
Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches the method in claim 4, but Pan fails to teach a method, wherein the window parameter information comprises window sizes and window locations, and the determining the second landscape-mode configuration of the application based on the window parameter information comprises: obtaining a screen size of the terminal; determining a plurality of display areas of the terminal based on the window sizes and the screen size; determining a display configuration of each of the to-be-displayed windows based on each of the window locations and the display areas; and determining the second landscape-mode configuration of the application based on the display configuration of each of the to-be-displayed windows.
However, Wang teaches:
wherein the window parameter information comprises window sizes and window locations, and the determining the second landscape-mode configuration of the application based on the window parameter information comprises: obtaining a screen size of the terminal; determining a plurality of display areas of the terminal based on the window sizes and the screen size; determining a display configuration of each of the to-be-displayed windows based on each of the window locations and the display areas; and determining the second landscape-mode configuration of the application based on the display configuration of each of the to-be-displayed windows ([0177]. Wang describes “…The size and position of the window can be modified by dragging the window by the user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the modifying application window boundaries, size and locations teaching of Wang to modify window layout to enhance GUI viewing.
Re-claim 7,
Pan-Han-Dieumegard-Wang teaches the method in claim 6, but Pan fails to teach a method, further comprising: in response to detecting an adjustment operation performed on a window location, adjusting the window location to obtain an adjusted location; and determining the display configuration of each of the to-be-displayed windows based on the adjusted location and the display areas.
However, Wang teaches:
further comprising: in response to detecting an adjustment operation performed on a window location, adjusting the window location to obtain an adjusted location; and determining the display configuration of each of the to-be-displayed windows based on the adjusted location and the display areas ([0177]. Wang describes “…The size and position of the window can be modified by dragging the window by the user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the modifying application window boundaries, size and locations teaching of Wang to modify window layout to enhance GUI viewing.
Re-claim 8,
Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches the method in claim 4, but Pan fails to teach a method, further comprising: determining a current focus window after the display operation is performed; determining, in response to a touch event performed on the terminal, a touch area corresponding to the touch event; determining whether the touch area is in the current focus window; in response to determining that the touch area is not in the current focus window, determining a window in which the touch area is located as a new current focus window; and executing an operation instruction corresponding to the touch event.
However, Wang teaches:
further comprising: determining a current focus window after the display operation is performed; determining, in response to a touch event performed on the terminal, a touch area corresponding to the touch event; determining whether the touch area is in the current focus window; in response to determining that the touch area is not in the current focus window, determining a window in which the touch area is located as a new current focus window; and executing an operation instruction corresponding to the touch event ([0174, 0190]. Wang describes “… touch screen … and …the window where the video is located may be called the focused window (i.e. the window that the user has recently operated) …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the current focus application window teaching of Wang to target the operating focus window.
Re-claim 9,
Pan-Han-Dieumegard-Wang teaches the method in claim 8, but Pan fails to teach a method, wherein the determining the current focus window comprises: traversing the to-be-displayed windows, determining at least one first window being in a first display state in the to-be-displayed windows, and determining at least one second window being in a second display state in the to-be-displayed windows, wherein the at least one second window is in the to-be-displayed windows excluding the at least one first window; determining a default focus window in the at least one first window; and determining the default focus window as the current focus window.
However, Wang teaches:
wherein the determining the current focus window comprises: traversing the to-be-displayed windows, determining at least one first window being in a first display state in the to-be-displayed windows, and determining at least one second window being in a second display state in the to-be-displayed windows, wherein the at least one second window is in the to-be-displayed windows excluding the at least one first window; determining a default focus window in the at least one first window; and determining the default focus window as the current focus window ([0174, 0190]. Wang describes “… touch screen … and …the window where the video is located may be called the focused window (i.e. the window that the user has recently operated) …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the current focus application window teaching of Wang to target the operating focus window.
Re-claim 17,
in addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches in claim 16, claim 17 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 5; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 18,
in addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard teaches in claim 16, claim 18 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 19,
in addition to what Pan-Han-Dieumegard-Wang teaches in claim 18, claim 19 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Han, Dieumegard and Wang, and further in view of Franks et al. (“Franks”, US 2016/0179798 A1).
Re-claim 10,
Pan-Han-Dieumegard-Wang teaches the method in claim 9, but Pan fails to teach a method, wherein the at least one first window comprises a parent display window and at least one display sub-window, and the touch event comprises: determining an event type of the touch event; in response to determining that the event type is a window jump event, clearing the at least one display sub-window, and displaying a new display sub-window corresponding to the touch event; and in response to determining that the event type is a non-window jump event, refreshing displaying of the current focus window.
However, Franks teaches:
wherein the at least one first window comprises a parent display window and at least one display sub-window, and the touch event comprises: determining an event type of the touch event; in response to determining that the event type is a window jump event, clearing the at least one display sub-window, and displaying a new display sub-window corresponding to the touch event; and in response to determining that the event type is a non-window jump event, refreshing displaying of the current focus window (Fig. 10, [0106, 0108]. Franks describes the concept of window jump event for navigating the hierarchical sub-windows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the hierarchical navigating windows teaching of Franks to provide user a convenient way to navigating a complex data structure.
Re-claim 11,
Pan-Han-Dieumegard-Wang-Franks teaches the method in claim 10, but Pan fails to teach a method, further comprising: after the displaying the new display sub-window, in response to a portrait-mode operation performed on the terminal, displaying the parent display window in a portrait mode; and setting the at least one display sub-window to the second display state.
However, Franks teaches:
further comprising: after the displaying the new display sub-window, in response to a portrait-mode operation performed on the terminal, displaying the parent display window in a portrait mode; and setting the at least one display sub-window to the second display state (Fig. 10, [0106, 0108]. Franks describes the concept of window jump event for navigating the hierarchical sub-windows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the hierarchical navigating windows teaching of Franks to provide user a convenient way to navigating a complex data structure.
Re-claim 12,
Pan-Han-Dieumegard-Wang-Franks teaches the method in claim 11, but Pan fails to teach a method, further comprising: in response to a landscape-mode operation performed on the terminal after the portrait-mode operation, setting the at least one display sub-window to the first display state; and displaying the at least one first window based on the second landscape-mode configuration.
However, Franks teaches:
further comprising: in response to a landscape-mode operation performed on the terminal after the portrait-mode operation, setting the at least one display sub-window to the first display state; and displaying the at least one first window based on the second landscape-mode configuration (Fig. 10, [0106, 0108]. Franks describes the concept of window jump event for navigating the hierarchical sub-windows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window layout display configuration teachings of modified Pan with the hierarchical navigating windows teaching of Franks to provide user a convenient way to navigating a complex data structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/29/2026 with respect to claims 1, 13 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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 TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached 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.
/TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights