DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Objection to the title has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s newly submitted amendment to the title.
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument regarding “Kato, however, in the above cited paragraph and figure, does not describe changing a design of the second window based on design information of the first window. Thus, Kato fails to disclose, teach, or suggest, at least, the above recited features of "determines a design of the second window based on the display information," "acquires design information of the first window," changes the design of the second window based on the design information," and displays the second window in which the design has been changed," in amended independent claim 1” has been fully considered; in response the examiner would like to point out Kato ‘989 paragraphs [0070], and [0100]-[0101] and Figs. 10 and 11, where it is disclosed that the pop-up window (second window) is being displayed based on the selection in the first window. The selected icon on the first window having information related to the information that needs to be display on the pop-up window, thus the second displayed window (pop-up) gets modified for displaying information related to the selected information in the first window.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (US 2020/0220989).
(1) regarding claims 1 and 16:
Kato ‘989 discloses an information processing device (10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a display device that displays information (touch panel 16 in Fig. 1); and
a controller (processor 11 in Fig. 1), wherein
the controller executes a standard application that performs a basic function of the information processing device (paragraph [0015], where the processor executes a display screen with a first item corresponding to a first function), and an additional application that adds a function other than the basic function to the information processing device (paragraph [0015], where the processor executes a display screen with a second item corresponding to a second function),
the standard application preferentially displays, when a predetermined notification has been acquired from the information processing device, a message, based on the predetermined notification, as a first window on the display (paragraph [0015], and [0018]-[0019], where a first display, when a home screen notification is acquired, displays a customized screen),
the additional application:
displays predetermined information, based on a process, as a second window on the display (paragraph [0058], where a popup screen gets displayed as a second window), and
acquires display information relating to the first window (Fig. 10 and paragraph [0070], where the information about the customized screen SC3 (first window) is obtained),
determines a design of the second window based on the display information (Fig. 11 and paragraph [0100]-[0101], where the design (the contents or options and information) of the display is based on the information of the icon that was preciously selected in screen SC3 (first window), and a pop-up window (second window) is presented based on that selection),
acquires design information of the first window (paragraph [0070], where the customized screen gets displayed, thus implying a design for the first window is acquired),
changes the design of the second window based on the design information (paragraph[00100]-[0101], where the design of the pop-up window gets formed by using the information of the icon selected on the previous screen), and
displays the second window in which the design has been changed (Fig. 11 and paragraph [0101], where the pop-up window (second window) gets displayed).
(2) regarding claim 2:
Kato ‘989 further discloses wherein the second window is displayed in a position that is overlapped by the first window (Fig. 9 and paragraph [0058], where it is clearly shown that the second window overlaps the first window).
(3) regarding claim 8:
Kato ‘989 further discloses wherein the predetermined notification acquired by the standard application is received from the information processing device, and is based on an operation related to hardware of the information processing device (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0019], the function related to the hardware components installed).
(4) regarding claim 9:
Kato ‘989 further discloses wherein the predetermined notification acquired by the standard application is received from the information processing device, and is related to a consumable item of the information processing device (paragraph [0119], indicating the state of the toner).
(5) regarding claim 14:
Kato ‘989 further discloses wherein the first window has one or more items arranged therein in a predetermined layout, and the additional application adjusts the predetermined layout when a size of the first window becomes less than or equal to a predetermined size (Fig 3 shows how the layout changes).
(6) regarding claims 17 and 18:
Kato ‘989 further discloses the design information of the first window includes attribute information of the design of the second window (paragraph [0117], where information about the formatting of the second windows is included), and
the additional application changes the design of the second window based on the attribute information (paragraph [0117], where using the formatting information the pop-up window gets modified for displaying).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 2020/0220989) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0259217).
(1) regarding claim 4:
Kato ‘989 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein a size of the display is included as the display information, and
the additional application further determines a size of the second window based on the size of the display.
However, Lee ‘217 teaches wherein a size of the display is included as the display information (paragraph [0102] and [0104], where size of the display has to be included in the information used to modify the size of the screen to fit the display dimensions), and
the additional application further determines a size of the second window based on the size of the display (paragraph [0104], where the size of the second screen is determined by the size of the display area of the display 300).
Having a system of Lee ‘217 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Kato ‘989 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kato ‘989 to include the limitations as taught by Lee ‘217 because even if an event occurs while watching content, event-related information may be further displayed on the display area of the expanded display, thereby providing various experiences to the user without interfering with the content currently being viewed (paragraph [0010]).
(2) regarding claim 5:
Kato ‘989 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the additional application stores a vertical size or a horizontal size of the second window based on the size of the display.
However, Lee ‘217 teaches wherein the additional application stores a vertical size or a horizontal size of the second window based on the size of the display (paragraph [0056]).
Having a system of Lee ‘217 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Kato ‘989 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kato ‘989 to include the limitations as taught by Lee ‘217 because even if an event occurs while watching content, event-related information may be further displayed on the display area of the expanded display, thereby providing various experiences to the user without interfering with the content currently being viewed (paragraph [0010]).
(3) regarding claim 6:
Kato ‘989 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the additional application displays the second window on the display in a default size in a case that acquisition of the display information fails.
However, Lee ‘217 teaches wherein the additional application displays the second window on the display in a default size in a case that acquisition of the display information fails (paragraph [0104], where the display area may automatically expand, thus implying a standard size is set as a default).
Having a system of Lee ‘217 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Kato ‘989 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kato ‘989 to include the limitations as taught by Lee ‘217 because even if an event occurs while watching content, event-related information may be further displayed on the display area of the expanded display, thereby providing various experiences to the user without interfering with the content currently being viewed (paragraph [0010]).
(4) regarding claim 7:
Kato ‘989 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the additional application further determines, based on the display information, a size of the second window to be less than or equal to a size of the first window.
However, Lee ‘217 teaches wherein the additional application further determines, based on the display information, a size of the second window to be less than or equal to a size of the first window (paragraph [0104], where the size of the second screen is determined by the size of the display area of the display 300).
Having a system of Lee ‘217 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Kato ‘989 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kato ‘989 to include the limitations as taught by Lee ‘217 because even if an event occurs while watching content, event-related information may be further displayed on the display area of the expanded display, thereby providing various experiences to the user without interfering with the content currently being viewed (paragraph [0010]).
(5) regarding claim 10:
Kato ‘989 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein window information relating to the first window is acquired as the display information, and
the additional application further:
acquires the window information relating to the first window, and
determines, based on the window information, a size of the second window to be less than or equal to a size of the first window.
However, Lee ‘217 teaches wherein window information relating to the first window is acquired as the display information (paragraph [0104]), and
the additional application further:
acquires the window information relating to the first window (paragraph [0104]), and
determines, based on the window information, a size of the second window to be less than or equal to a size of the first window (paragraph [0104], where the size of the second screen is determined by the size of the display area of the display 300).
Having a system of Lee ‘217 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Kato ‘989 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kato ‘989 to include the limitations as taught by Lee ‘217 because even if an event occurs while watching content, event-related information may be further displayed on the display area of the expanded display, thereby providing various experiences to the user without interfering with the content currently being viewed (paragraph [0010]).
(6) regarding claim 11:
Kato ‘989 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the additional application acquires, as the window information, information relating to a height and a width of the first window.
However, Lee ‘217 teaches wherein the additional application acquires, as the window information, information relating to a height and a width of the first window (paragraph [0104], where the size of the second screen is determined by the size of the display area of the display 300).
Having a system of Lee ‘217 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Kato ‘989 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kato ‘989 to include the limitations as taught by Lee ‘217 because even if an event occurs while watching content, event-related information may be further displayed on the display area of the expanded display, thereby providing various experiences to the user without interfering with the content currently being viewed (paragraph [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 12-13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A. Claim 3 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein in a case that the standard application displays the first window on the display while the additional application is displaying the second window, the second window is not visible as a result of the first window being displayed over the second window”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
B. Claim 12 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the additional application acquires, as the window information, information relating to a shape of a corner of the first window”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
C. Claim 13 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the additional application determines, in a case that acquisition of the display information fails, the size of the second window so as to be less than or equal to the size of the first window based on only the window information”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
D. Claim 15 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the additional application adjusts the predetermined layout, such that a size of an item, among he one or more items, does not become less than or equal to another predetermined size”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights