DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 5/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “moving an index serving as a second content related to the first content along the first direction near the predetermined side.” This renders the claim indefinite, as there is no specific definition for “near” given in the specification, and it is not clear how far away an index would have to be from the predetermined side to no longer be considered near to that side. As the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained from the claim language, given the uncertainty of the term “near,” the claim and its dependents are indefinite.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0145291 (“Weber”).
With regard to Claim 1, Weber teaches a content display method of a display device including:
a display having a predetermined shape and having a predetermined side along a first direction (Fig. 4A shows a device display of a rectangular shape provided by the device, including sides along horizontal and vertical directions according to the shape of the device); and
a touch panel arranged to overlap the display and configured to receive a touch operation, the content display method comprising: displaying a first content on the display; receiving a first touch operation along the first direction on the touch panel ([0016] describes that the screen includes a touch screen; [0029] describes a touch operation along a vertical axis which is shown in Fig. 4B);
moving the first content along the first direction and moving an index serving as a second content related to the first content along the first direction near the predetermined side, on the display ([0029] and Figs. 4A and 4B show that both webpage content and a tab which is related to the webpage content move in the direction near the bottom side of the device);
receiving a second touch operation along a second direction different from the first direction on the touch panel, the second touch operation starting from a position corresponding to the index ([0029] and Fig. 4C show that a user inputs a touch operation on the tab that moves away from the edge in a vertical direction); and
displaying the second content on the display (Fig. 4C shows that the whole of the tab is again visible in the interface, as compared to Fig. 4B where it had been moved partially off-screen).
With regard to Claim 2, Weber teaches that a direction of the first touch operation along the first direction, a direction of movement of the first content along the first direction, and a direction of movement of the index along the first direction are same.
With regard to Claims 3 and 4, Weber teaches that the index is smaller than the display. Fig. 4A shows that the tabs each occupy less than the full area of the display.
With regard to Claims 7 and 8, Weber teaches that the index is arranged in contact with the predetermined side. Fig. 4B shows the tab 224b4 arranged adjacent to the bottom edge.
With regard to Claim 9 and 10, Weber teaches that the predetermined side includes a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, and the index is displayed near the first side and/or near the second side. Figs. 4A-4C show that movement of the tabs in the interface is carried out along the vertical axis, such that the webpage tabs move toward and away from both the top and bottom sides in the interface.
With regard to Claims 11 and 12, Weber teaches that the predetermined shape of the display includes a rectangle, and the predetermined side includes a rectangle long side. Fig. 4A shows that the display is a rectangle. [0016] describes that in certain aspects, the user can drag fingers in any direction to create space between tabs, indicating that a long side of the rectangle can also be predetermined as a side toward which tabs can be moved.
With regard to Claim 13 and 14, Weber teaches that the first content includes at least a character, and the second content includes at least an image. Fig. 4A shows that webpage content in each tab includes text characters, while the tabs are border images covering a portion of the pages, and include graphical icons displayed thereon.
With regard to Claim 20, Weber teaches that the index serving as the second content is re-displayed based on the first content re-displayed by the first touch operation along the first direction. Figs. 4A-4C and [0029] show various arrangements of tabs, including where tabs and associated content can be hidden and unhidden in the interface, according to various operations performed thereon. Therefore, a given tab can be re-displayed after being at least partially hidden, when a user inputs a gesture in the first direction that also causes at least a portion of the webpage content associated with the given tab to be displayed again.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber.
With regard to Claims 5 and 6, Weber does not explicitly teach that the index has a triangular shape. However, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Weber such that the index has a triangular shape, as doing so is an aesthetic design choice that involves changing the shape of an element in the interface.
Matters relating to ornamentation only cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). Configuration of the shape of a claimed element is considered a matter of choice which a which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, the index having a triangular shape is an obvious modification of the elements taught in Weber, as one of skill in the art would be motivated by aesthetic considerations to use a different shape in implementing the tabs described in Weber.
With regard to Claims 15 and 16, Weber suggests that receiving an input of the character serving as the first content on the touch panel. Fig. 4A shows that content of the webpage associated with tab 224b3 includes a search bar, where one of skill in the art would understand that a search bar receives character input from users to search a particular website. Therefore, one of skill in the art would understand that the page content shown in Weber receives an input of a character included in the content.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber, in view of Li, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0068475 (“Li”).
With regard to Claim 17, Li teaches that a size of the index serving as the second content is dynamically switched. [0017]-[0018] describe scenarios where tabs in an interface can be made bigger and smaller, depending on a current location of a user input, or which corresponds to a currently open process. Therefore, an index such as the tabs described in Weber can be dynamically sized as described in Li.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Li with Weber. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling displayed tabs to be reactive to user input, thereby providing a better interactive experience with a user interface.
With regard to Claim 18, Li teaches that a residence time of the index serving as the second content varies. [0001] describes that content can be opened and closed, including content contained in tabs. Therefore, the time for which a given tab is open varies, as tabs can be closed at any time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Li with Weber. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling displayed tabs to be reactive to user input, thereby providing a better interactive experience with a user interface.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber, in view of Gilbey, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0083902 (“Gilbey”).
With regard to Claim 19, Weber does not teach that the index serving as the second content is hidden when a valid period of the index has expired or a relation of the index has broken. Gilbey teaches at [0254] that a tab can have a fixed time that it will remain open. When the time expires, the tab closes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Gilbey with Weber. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional user control over the display of tabs in an interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0096715 and Chen, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0202879 each teach additional relevant methods for manipulating content in an interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
3/4/2026