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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25-34, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SONG (US 2016/0011776 A1).
Claim 21. SONG discloses a system of operating multi-task interactive two or more softwares in one or more electronic devices, comprising:
one or more processors of the one or more electronic devices configured to execute at least one application and one or more related application with different interactive programs respectively (control unit 110 executes multiple applications simultaneously in divided screens) (Fig. 2), [0053];
a screen module, operatively linked to said one or more processors, comprising at least one display screen having two or more display areas for displaying said at least one application and said one or more related applications respectively (display device with divided screens 120/121-123 for displaying multiple applications) [0047]-[0048], (Fig. 4); and
one or more input modules operatively linked to said one or more processors, wherein said at least one application and said one or more related applications, which are able to be simultaneously controlled and operated by said two or more input modules, are executed to be displayed on said two or more display areas of said at least one display screen respectively and are independently controlled by said input modules at the same time for enabling a user to process said at least one application via one of said one or more input modules and operate said one or more related applications at the same time via another one of said one or more input modules without interfering said at least one application (input unit 100 with different input devices (e.g., remote controller, keyboard, mouse) mapped to divided screens for independent control without mutual collision or interference), [0021], [0030], (Fig. 2-4),
wherein one or more sidelines are displayed on said at least one display screen to split said at least one display screen into said two or more display areas to display said at least one application and said one or more related applications respectively (separators divide the screen into regions/windows), [0051].
Claim 22. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 21, further comprising a control module configured to generate said one or more sidelines to be displayed on said at least one display screen to split said at least one display screen into said two or more display areas to display said at least one application and said one or more related applications respectively, wherein each of said one or more sidelines is movable on said at least one display screen to adjust a size of each of said two or more display areas, so as to adjust a size of said at least one application and said one or more related applications displayed in said two or more display areas correspondingly and respectively [0065].
Claim 23. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 21, wherein at least one of said one or more sidelines is generated as at least one of a horizontal sideline, a vertical sideline and a circular sideline, wherein each of said one or more sidelines is movable on said at least one display screen to adjust a size of each of said two or more display areas, so as to adjust a size of said at least one application and said one or more related applications displayed in said two or more display areas correspondingly and respectively [0051], [0065].
Claim 25. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 21, further comprising a control panel interactively and operatively linked with said at least one display screen, wherein said two or more input modules are provided at said control panel to independently control said at least one application and said one or more related applications displayed on said two or more display areas of said at least one display screen [0021], [0023], [0030].
Claim 26. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 25, wherein said one or more sidelines are generated on said control panel to split said control panel into two or more control areas according to a position of each of said two or more display areas, wherein said two or more control areas are axial symmetry based on a connection portion between said screen module and said control panel, wherein each of said one or more sidelines formed on said control panel is a control sideline to separate said two or more input modules thereon (adjusting and switching positions of divided screens implies symmetric arrangements around dividers, since the user has control of the sizing), [0065].
Claim 27. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 25, wherein said two or more input modules are provided at said control panel to independently control said at least one application and said one or more related applications displayed on said two or more display areas of said at least one display screen [0021], [0023], [0030].
Claim 28. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 27, wherein said one or more sidelines are generated on said control panel to split said control panel into two or more control areas according to a position of each of said two or more display areas, wherein said two or more control areas are axial symmetry based on a connection portion between said screen module and said control panel, wherein each of said one or more sidelines formed on said control panel is a control sideline to separate said two or more input modules thereon (adjusting and switching positions of divided screens implies symmetric arrangements around dividers, since the user has control of the sizing), [0065].
Claim 29. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 25, wherein two of said one or more sidelines are generated on said at least one display screen that one said sideline formed at said at least one display screen is a visual sideline to separate said at least one application and said two or more related applications displayed on said two or more display areas respectively while another said sideline formed at said control panel is a control sideline to separate said two or more input modules thereon [0051], (Fig. 4).
Claim 30. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 25, wherein two of said one or more sidelines are generated on said at least one display screen and said control panel in such a manner that one said sideline formed at said at least one display screen is a visual sideline to separate said at least one application and said two or more related applications displayed on said two or more display areas respectively while another said sideline formed at said control panel is a control sideline to separate said two or more input modules thereon [0051], (Fig. 4).
Claim 31. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 27, wherein two of said one or more sidelines are generated on said at least one display screen and said control panel in such a manner that one said sideline formed at said at least one display screen is a visual sideline to separate said at least one application and said two or more related applications displayed on said two or more display areas respectively while another said sideline formed at said control panel is a control sideline to separate said two or more input modules thereon [0051], (Fig. 4).
Claim 32. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 26, wherein said sideline is generated between said display area and said control area to split said screen area into one or more control areas according to a position of said display area, wherein said two or more control areas are axial symmetry based on a sideline visual separation between said display area and said control area on said at least one display screen (adjusting and switching positions of divided screens implies symmetric arrangements around dividers, since the user has control of the sizing), [0065].
Claim 33. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 29, wherein one or more of said sidelines are generated on said display areas and said control areas on at least one touch surface area of said at least one display screen and further split to be perpendicular with one or more additional sidelines on said at least one touch surface area [0051], (Fig. 4).
Claim 34. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 21, wherein at least one of said display screens is selected from the group consisting of a touch screen of the electronic device, a display panel coupled on the electronic device, a three-dimensional screen, a virtual reality display screen, an augmented reality display screen, a virtual screen, a hologram projector of the electronic device, a UV light projector of the electronic device, and a projector screen of the electronic device (display devices include touch-enabled LCD/OLED/flexible/3D displays in smart TVs or mobiles), [0048].
Claim 37. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 22, wherein a movement of each of said one or more sidelines generated by said control module is able to be directed by one of a motion sensor, a camera sensor, a voice command detection through a microphone, a light projection sensor, and a touchless hologram sensor (input devices include cameras for motion recognition), [0018], [0028].
Claim 38. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 37, further comprising a control panel interactively and operatively linked with said at least one display screen, wherein said two or more input modules are provided at said control panel to independently control said at least one application and said one or more related applications displayed on said two or more display areas of said at least one display screen, wherein two of said one or more sidelines are generated on said at least one display screen and said control panel in such a manner that one said sideline formed at said at least one display screen is a visual sideline to separate said at least one application and said two or more related applications displayed on said two or more display areas respectively while another said sideline formed at said control panel is a control sideline to separate said two or more input modules thereon (Fig. 4).
Claim 39. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 21, wherein said at least one application is displayed on said at least one display screen, wherein said two or more input modules and said at least one or more display areas are provided to operate said at least one application and said one or more related applications displayed on said two or more display areas of said at least one display screen (Fig. 4).
Claim 40. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 21, wherein said one or more sidelines are generated between said two or more applications to split said two or more applications into two or more display areas which are divided based on a sideline visual separation between said two or more applications being displayed [0051], (Fig. 4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 24, 35, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG (US 2016/0011776 A1) as applied above and further in view of HONG (US 2015/0186024 A1).
Claim 24. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 21, but does not disclose wherein at least one of said one or more sidelines is generated as at least one of a horizontal sideline, a vertical sideline and a circular sideline, wherein each of said one or more sidelines is artificial intelligence operational. HONG discloses least one of said one or more sidelines is generated as at least one of a horizontal sideline, a vertical sideline and a circular sideline, wherein each of said one or more sidelines is artificial intelligence operational [0034]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify SONG with HONG and would have been motivated to do so assist the user with the use of artificial intelligence.
Claim 35. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of said sidelines is a color coded sideline that said interactive programs are able to be dragged through said color coded sideline accordingly. HONG disclose wherein at least one of said sidelines is a color coded sideline that said interactive programs are able to be dragged through said color coded sideline accordingly [0055], [0109]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify SONG with HONG and would have been motivated to do so to help change focus.
Claim 36. SONG discloses the system, as recited in claim 26, but does not expressly disclose an artificial intelligence module, which is executed by one of said one or more processors, communicatively connected with said control module to arrange locations and adjustments of said one or more sidelines for resizing said one or more display areas and said one or more control areas of said interactive programs. HONG disclose an artificial intelligence module, which is executed by one of said one or more processors, communicatively connected with said control module to arrange locations and adjustments of said one or more sidelines for resizing said one or more display areas and said one or more control areas of said interactive programs [0034], [0040]-[0041], [0074]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify SONG with HONG and would have been motivated to do so assist the user with the use of artificial intelligence.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,741,025. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are claiming similar invention relating to at least a system of operating multi-task interactive two or more softwares in one or more electronic devices, comprising: one or more processors of the one or more electronic devices configured to execute at least one application and one or more related application with different interactive programs respectively; a screen module, operatively linked to said one or more processors, comprising at least one display screen having two or more display areas for displaying said at least one application and said one or more related applications respectively; and one or more input modules operatively linked to said one or more processors, wherein said at least one application and said one or more related applications, which are able to be simultaneously controlled and operated by said two or more input modules, are executed to be displayed on said two or more display areas of said at least one display screen respectively and are independently controlled by said input modules at the same time for enabling a user to process said at least one application via one of said one or more input modules and operate said one or more related applications at the same time via another one of said one or more input modules without interfering said at least one application, wherein one or more sidelines are displayed on said at least one display screen to split said at least one display screen into said two or more display areas to display said at least one application and said one or more related applications respectively.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. 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, David L. Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715