DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The claims filed on 03/27/2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11, and 20 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites the term “cases” in line 4 of the claim; which appears to be “causes”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12-19 are objected to for incorporating the deficiency of the claim upon which they depend.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opara et al. (US 2023/0236720 A1; hereinafter as Opara) in view of Han (US 2022/0319468 A1; hereafter Han).
As to claim 1, Opara discloses:
A method (see Fig. 16 and ¶ 0093), comprising:
receiving, at an information handling device coupled to a display, a request to display multiple display zones on the display (see Fig. 1-2B and ¶ 0045-0049; split-screen applications 102; the split-screen mode can be activated by opening applications), wherein the information handling device comprises a video card comprising display splitting firmware allowing splitting of the display into multiple display zones (see ¶ 0045; split screen functions is implemented as software application. ¶ 0043; the split-screen mode is not limited to being implemented as an application; for example, the split screen mode can be built into the operating system. Fig. 15 and ¶ 0087; The exemplary split-screen implementation device 1500 can be implemented in and run on a mobile device of a user; Note that one or more systems, subsystems, components, and/or modules introduced here may be implemented as or include a software application; however, any suitable combination of these systems / subsystems / modules could be implemented as a hardware or a firmware component to achieve the same or similar functions);
identifying, based upon the request, a number of display zones to be displayed on the display (see Figs. 1-2B and ¶ 0042-0048; For example, the user device can include one split-screen application that is designated for 2-way splits and another split-screen application for 3-way splits); and
displaying, on the display, the number of display zones on the display, wherein the displaying comprises treating each zone, via the splitting firmware, as separated portions of the display (see Fig. 3A-3B and ¶ 0053-0058; the screen is divided into portions which the user can drag the border of the portions to resize. ¶ 0055; portions do not overlap).
Opara does not expressly teach the displaying comprises treating each zone as a physically separated portion of the display. However, Han is relied upon for teaching the limitation. Specifically, Han discloses a display method comprising treating each zone as a separated portions of the display (Han: see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0033, 0046-0047; dividing a display screen of the display apparatus into at least two display regions that can independently perform display control on the premises that an electronic apparatus does not need to be installed with an additional driver. See Fig. 11 and ¶ 0099; the EEPROM (memory) may pre-store the configuration information of the first display sub-region and the second display sub-region; the video separation module may retrieve the EEPROM information, and transmit relevant information to the graphics processor GPU on the side of the electronic apparatus through the HDMI command channel; the GPU may generate image signals for display on two displays according to the configuration information, and allocate the image signals to three HDMI data channels according to bandwidth requirements, where each data channel may only be used to transmit one image signal, and two image signals may not be mixed and transmitted; after the video separation module on the display apparatus side receives the image data from the GPU, the video separation module may separate two independent image signals and generate the standard HDMI format; and the image merging module may merge two HDMI format images into the second image data, and outputs the second image data to the liquid crystal display).
Both references, each is directed to a method of dividing a display screen into multiple display zones; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the split-screen application disclosed in Opara to include the specific feature of treating each display zone as a physically separated portion of the display of Han such that the user can split display screen into display zones as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter (i.e., dividing a display screen into multiple display portions), and the advantage described in Han is to allow the user to independently control the display content; thus, enhance user experience with the user interface (Han: see ¶ 0033).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a system comprising a processor, a memory device that stores instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to implement the method as claimed in claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale. (Opara: see Fig. 15 and ¶ 0087).
As to claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a product, the product comprising: a computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the product to perform the interface displaying method recited in independent claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rationale. (Opara: see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0087).
As to claims 2 and 12, the rejection of claim 1 (11) is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach wherein the receiving the request comprises receiving a request to access a profile on the information handling device (Opara: see ¶ 0077-0078, 0084; when the user selects the 3 splits icon 1102, user may be prompted to select from a list of previously saved preferences for the split-screen display. FIG. 11B illustrates an example of a saved preferences menu 1104. Saved preferences menu 1104 includes a list of the user’s previously saved split-screen layouts and applications).
As to claims 3 and 13, the rejection of claim 2 (12) is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach wherein the identifying comprises identifying a default number of display zones associated with the profile of the information handling device (Opara: see ¶ 0045-0046, 0049, 0072-0074; Split-screen applications 102 are an example of two applications, each with a default number of portions. In particular, one split-screen application has a default of two portions, and the other has a default of three portions. The defaults indicate to a user how many portions are available within the respective split-screen mode, which in turn indicates the number of applications that can be simultaneously viewed when the respective split-screen application is opened).
As to claims 4 and 14, the rejection of claim 1 (11) is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach wherein the receiving the request comprises detecting the display splitting firmware and automatically implementing a number of display zones based upon the display splitting firmware (Opara: see ¶ 0045-0046, 0049, 0072-0074; Split-screen applications 102. see ¶ 0045; split screen functions is implemented as software application. ¶ 0043; the split-screen mode is not limited to being implemented as an application; for example, the split screen mode can be built into the operating system. Fig. 15 and ¶ 0087; The exemplary split-screen implementation device 1500 can be implemented in and run on a mobile device of a user; Note that one or more systems, subsystems, components, and/or modules introduced here may be implemented as or include a software application; however, any suitable combination of these systems / subsystems / modules could be implemented as a hardware or a firmware component to achieve the same or similar functions).
As to claims 5 and 15, the rejection of claim 1 (11) is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach receiving input from a user adjusting an attribute of at least one of the display zones (Opara: see ¶ 0054, 0079, 0081; the layout and sizes of portions 1, 2, and 3 can be altered; i.e., the user can drag the bottom of portion 1 upwards to align with the bottom border of portion 2).
As to claims 6 and 16, the rejection of claim 5 (15) is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach saving the attributes within a user profile for the user and, upon subsequent access of the user to the information handling device, employing attributes for the at least one of the display zones during the displaying (Opara: see ¶ 0070-0074; saving preferences. ¶ 0077-0081; the user can select from a list of previously saved preferences for the split-screen display; Saved preferences menu 1104 includes a list of the user’s previously saved split-screen layouts and applications).
As to claims 7 and 17, the rejection of claim 1 (11) is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach wherein the displaying comprises displaying the display zones each having an equal size and shape to the other of the display zones (Opara: see ¶ 0061, 0080; equal portions of the display).
As to claims 8 and 18, the rejection of claim 1 (11) is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach wherein the displaying comprises allowing user adjustment to display settings for each of the display zones individually (Opara: see ¶ 0054; The layout and sizes of portions 1, 2, and 3 can be altered in some embodiments. For example, a user can drag the bottom border of portion 1 upwards to align with the bottom border of portion 2).
As to claims 9 and 19, the rejection of claim 1 (11) is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach wherein the identifying a number of display zones comprises identifying a number of display zones permitted by the display splitting firmware and wherein the displaying comprises displaying no more display zones than the number of display zones permitted by the display splitting firmware (Opara: see ¶ 0079; the layouts of split-screen modes can be altered and resized as the user prefers. The number of portions within the split-screen mode can dictate how many applications can be used. For example, a two-way split cannot accommodate more than two applications).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Opara and Han further teach
wherein the identifying comprises identifying a number of display zones permitted by the display and where in the displaying comprises displaying no more display zones than the number of display zones permitted by the display (Opara: see ¶ 0079; the layouts of split-screen modes can be altered and resized as the user prefers. The number of portions within the split-screen mode can dictate how many applications can be used. For example, a two-way split cannot accommodate more than two applications).
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 at 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