DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/28/2024.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Displaying Second Application Content Within An Interface of a First Application.
Claims Status
Claims 22-41 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 22 and 34 are independent.
Claims 1-21 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The representative Independent claim(s) 22 recite(s) a method comprising displaying an interface of a first application, wherein the interface of the first application comprises a first link; receiving a first operation, wherein the first operation is an operation of opening the first link; and obtaining an access page of the first link through a second application, and displaying the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application.
Here, the method recites an abstract idea that falls under the grouping of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Specifically, the activity is accessing content via a link [an operation of opening the first link] and rendering the content [obtaining and displaying the access page] within a host container—similar to referencing a reference, such as a footnote [link] in a first book [or page thereof interface of the first application] that directs a reader to a second book [or page thereof second application], and wherein the information from the second book is displayed on top of the first book’s interface/page, which is a method of organizing human activity. This process simply uses a computer to perform the familiar “human activity” of using a reference (the link) to locate and view information from an outside source within a current context, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claim recite that the steps are performed “by a” or “the terminal device”, this is reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, can neither provide a practical application not “significantly more”.
Therefore, claim 22 is ineligible under 101.
Independent Claim 34 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 22, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 23 adds the optional step of “displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application comprises:…adding, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application”. However, the “adding” of an access page is an example of well-known insignificant extra-solution activity. This doesn’t amount to significantly more, since it includes adding a floating window that blocks the first application, e.g., chat application. See applicant admitted prior art pointing to this concept being well-known by stating words like “Currently” and “usually”, Instant Specification, ¶ 5, as filed. As such this claim is not eligible under 101.
Claim(s) 35 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 23, and the same analysis applies. Additionally, the device of claim 35 is configured to perform the optional step of “replace a picture at a position of the first link on the interface of the first application with the access page of the first link”. Here, this step, in its physical book sense, can be performed manually by humans, by treating the physical book as a scrapbook or a dynamic document rather than a static object, allowing for the physical integration of external data to enhance the informational value of a specific page. As such, this claim further recites the abstract idea, and is also ineligible under 101.
Claims 24 and 36 is directed to adding a surfaceview control to an interface. However, this concept is well-known insignificant extra solution activities, so the claims are ineligible under 101. E.g., this well-known status is reflected in the number of references discussing the concept. For example:
As explained in the 102 section below, Cheng teaches that SurfaceView provides an independent, hardware-accelerated drawing surface that does not share the same drawing surface as its host window. The SurfaceView may be implemented in picture-in-picture mode or floating window mode. By replacing a standard view with a SurfaceView and assigning its interface to the second application's access page, the terminal achieves efficient, high-performance rendering for embedded content (like game engines) on a separate thread, Cheng ¶ 56.
Ying; Yulong US 20180004396 A1, using a SurfaceView control to display a video with an interface, ¶ 22.
Zhou; Xingchen et al. US 20230108680 A1, a video is displayed within an interface by using a SurfaceView control, ¶ 390 and fig. 2A-2.
Claims 25-26 and 37-38 are further directed to the abstract idea of display, but also include toggling between a full-screen display mode, which is well-known insignificant extra solution activities, so the claims are ineligible under 101. E.g., this well-known status is reflected in the number of references discussing the concept. For example:
as mentioned in 102/103 sections below:
Rodriguez teaches (e.g., full screen control 816 and 876 allows for the embedded interface to be displayed in the entire screen, ¶¶ 364 and 370 and figs. 8A and 8C. Here, the embedded video necessarily is played on a bigger interface, which is interpreted as a creating of “a full-screen interface” and assigning that interface to “a second interface”) and
Cheng teaches when an interface is displayed in full-screen mode in a landscape mode, and the user turns the device [third operation] to portrait mode, the device cancels the full screen mode, ¶¶ 130-133 and fig. 15. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, in implementing Cheng to Rodriguez, to have realized that canceling the landscape mode would lead to a display before entering the full scree mode [displaying…the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application
A toggling between full screen and normal/floating/PIP view/window is also taught by the below:
Repka, Mikko US 20050223341 A1, ¶ 37
Mo; Boyu US 20230127743 A1, ¶ 96
Mughal; Mushtaq Ahmad et al. US 20060291817 A1, ¶ 12
Claims 27 and 39 are further directed to the abstract idea of displaying, but also include creating floating interface that is dragged/slide up or down. However, this concept is well-known insignificant extra solution activities, so the claims are ineligible under 101. E.g., this well-known status is reflected in the number of references discussing the concept, and the claim(s) is therefore ineligible under 101. For example:
As mentioned in 103 rejection section below, Cheng teaches that the moving, creating, and assigning is reflected in a method where an independent SurfaceView interface is moved to a screen boundary via user input, e.g., being drag toward the top and right screen boundaries, creating a floating interface (moving, creating), and assigning that floating interface of the second application when, thus facilitating a flexible display of an embedded application, ¶¶ 56, 194 and 196 and fig. 23.
The following prior art also teach this concept:
LIU; Yue US 20220413671 A1, Par 30.
Tofinetti; Michael N. et al. US 20120005607 A1, ¶ 22 and fig. 3.
Claim 28 is further directed to the abstract idea of displaying, but is directed to returning the display of a floating window back to its original position when a dragged beyond threshold boundary away from a screen’s edge. However, this concept is well-known insignificant extra solution activities, so the claim(s) is therefore ineligible under 101. E.g., this well-known status is reflected in the number of references discussing the concept. For example:
As explained in 103 rejection below, Chaudhri teaches that an operation cancellation occurs when an input includes a subsequent movement of the first contact (reverse movement) in a direction opposite the movement in the first direction and the subsequent movement exceeds a threshold distance or location in the reverse direction, ¶ 644, wherein a location threshold is a threshold distance away from an edge of the display [preset threshold away from the screen boundary], ¶ 624. Wherein when a movement of an item fails to meet a criteria, the item is returned to its original location, ¶ 651.
Walkin; Brandon M. et al. US 20200326839 A1, also teaches this concept a second application's representation is dragged, and the operation is canceled by lifting the contact beyond a threshold distance of a predefined side edge area, and reverting the display to its previous state, ¶ 205.
Kim; Kibeom US 20150058804 A1, a result of the touching device being moved to the termination touch point 210B.15 closer than the threshold length to the edge of the touchscreen 106 the mobile device may determine that the user intends to cancel the dragging gesture and a command corresponding to an icon at the termination touch point 210B.15 may not be executed by the mobile device, ¶ 29 and fig. 2B.
Claim 29 is directed to adjusting a size of an object based on its positional relationship with another object. However, this concept is well-known insignificant extra solution activities, so the claim is therefore ineligible under 101. E.g., this well-known status is reflected in the number of references discussing the concept. For example:
As explained in 103 rejection below, Opara teaches that dragged content is automatically resized when it gets near to another object, e.g., a clipboard menu, ¶ 60 and fig. 3A, wherein the resizing is done based on the size of that another object, e.g., based on the size of the icons within the menu, ¶ 61 and fig. 3B.
Larabie-Belanger; Maxime US 20180189073 A1, The UI extension 1112 is dynamically resized and repositioned to remain attached to the bottom right corner of the target window 1102, ensuring it fits within the fluctuating open graphical region 1114 defined by surrounding objects, ¶ 138 and fig. 11a-b.
Claim 30 is directed to closing a displayed object and removing it from the display. However, this concept is well-known insignificant extra solution activities, so the claim is ineligible under 101. E.g., this well-known status is reflected in the number of references discussing the concept. For example:
As explained in the 102 section below, Rodriguez teaches that a user can input a close command to close an embedded application interface and remove it from the display [skipping displaying], e.g., on a close control 822, ¶¶ 135 and 364 and fig. 8A.
Benson; Doug et al. US 5808610 A, teaches that when selected, close button 218 closes the panel and removes it from the display, col 3:38-47.
Rokos; John P. US 20220075839 A1, teaches that in response to the user touching or clicking on the close button or icon 155, the pinpoint bookmark 150 can be removed from the display screen 110, ¶ 47.
Claims 31-33 and 40-41 further recites the abstract idea of displaying information or are otherwise directed to what is displayed. As such, they are also ineligible under 101.
Purported Improvement Note: The Instant Specification describes a purported improvement over the prior art, but this isn’t reflected in the claimed invention. Specifically, the Instant Specification points to an issue of the prior art in which when links are opened from a chat application, they typically launch in full-screen or as a floating window, which disrupts the user experience by blocking the original chat interface, and addresses this issue provides a method "so that when a terminal device opens an access page of a link, the access page does not block an application interface in which an original link is located", Instant Specification ¶¶ 5-6, as filed. However, the claimed invention doesn’t reflect a non-blocking feature of such displaying method, and/or concepts that go beyond what is common in the art. If the claims are amended to reflect such non-blocking display, in a way not common in the art, the above 101 rejection(s) could potentially be overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites two instances of the step of “assigning, by the terminal device, a first interface of the first surfaceview control to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link” (one as a main step and the other as a sub-step of the main step of “adding, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application”). However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe a how a second instance of this step relates to or differs from the first instance.
Claim 36 recites similar limitations and lacks support in the Instant Specification for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24, 31 and 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites two instances of the step of “assigning, by the terminal device, a first interface of the first surfaceview control to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link” (one as a main step and the other as a sub-step of the main step of “adding, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application”). Here, it is unclear if how a second instance of this step relates to or differs from the first instance.
Claim 36 recites similar limitations and is unclear for similar reasons. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the second instance as being directed to the same instance. Correction required.
Claim 31 recites “and after the, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link, the method further comprises: re-displaying, by the terminal device, the first link on the interface of the first application”. Here it unclear what is meant with “after the…the access page of the first”. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets limitation(s) as being directed to a “re-displaying” step after the “closing” of the access page of the first link. Correction required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22-23, 25, 30-32, 34-35, 37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodriguez; Adam et al. (hereinafter Rodriguez – US 20180367483 A1).
Independent Claim 22:
Rodriguez teaches:
A method, comprising:
displaying, by a terminal device, an interface of a first application, wherein the interface of the first application comprises a first link; (on a user device [a terminal device] an interface of a first application, e.g., a messaging application, displays a list of messages, wherein one or more of the messages can serve as links to playable media, ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
receiving, by the terminal device, a first operation, wherein the first operation is an operation of opening the first link; (a user provides a command, such as a selection of a message [first operation], to the terminal for playing [opening] the video [the first link], ¶ 221.)
and obtaining, by the terminal device in response to the first operation, an access page of the first link through a second application, (the video is obtained from storage, and played, via an embedded media player application, on the interface of the messaging application, ¶¶ 31 and 221, and figs. 8A and 8C-8E. Playing a video after a user operation acts as an access page because browsers consider the interaction a user operation that grants permission to unblocks/initiates media playback)
and displaying the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application. (the video is played, via an embedded media player application, on the interface of the messaging application, ¶¶ 31 and 221, and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
Claim 23:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application comprises:
replacing, by the terminal device, a picture at a position of the first link on the interface of the first application with the access page of the first link;
or adding, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application. (the playing of the video in the embedded media player application is considered both to “replace” a picture at the position of the first link [a still image/picture is replaced with a moving picture when played], and to “add” the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application [the video is “added” to the interface of the messaging application], ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
Claim 25:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a second operation, wherein the second operation is an operation of switching the access page of the first link for full-screen display; and creating, by the terminal device, a full-screen interface, and assigning the full-screen interface to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link in response to the second operation. (e.g., full screen control 816 and 876 allows for the embedded interface to be displayed in the entire screen, ¶¶ 364 and 370 and figs. 8A and 8C. Here, the embedded video necessarily is played on a bigger interface, which is interpreted as a creating of “a full-screen interface” and assigning that interface to “a second interface”.)
Claim 30:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the terminal device, a fourth operation, wherein the fourth operation is an operation of closing the access page of the first link; and closing, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link in response to the fourth operation, and skipping displaying the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application. (the receiving, closing, and skipping displaying is reflected in that a user can input a close command to close an embedded application interface and remove it from the display [skipping displaying], e.g., on a close control 822, ¶¶ 135 and 364 and fig. 8A)
Claim 31:
The rejection of claim 30 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the terminal device displays the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application by replacing a picture at a position of the first link on the interface of the first application with the access page of the first link; (the playing of the video in the embedded media player application is considered both to “replace” a picture at the position of the first link [a still image/picture is replaced with a moving picture when played], ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
and after the, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link, the method further comprises: (For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets limitation(s) as being directed to a “re-displaying” step [see below] after the “closing” of the access page of the first link. Correction required. In Rodriguez, the video can be paused, or otherwise stopped, ¶¶ 83, and 231. Here, this stopping of video playback is broadly interpreted as closing the access page of the first link, since there the access to video playback is temporarily closed)
re-displaying, by the terminal device, the first link on the interface of the first application. (after a video stops playing, the user can replay at a later time, ¶ 219. as mentioned above for claim 22, playback can be performed by selecting a message [link] on a chat conversation, ¶ 221. Therefore, the displaying of the message allowing for replaying the video is interpreted as “re-displaying…the first link…”)
Claim 32:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the interface of the first application comprises the first link by the interface of the first application comprising a thumbnail of the second application, a default thumbnail, an open button of the first link, and wherein the second application comprises an application corresponding to the first link or a default application on the terminal device. (chat conversation interface necessarily teaches the claimed elements because the "selectable message" (e.g., an image of a video with a play button) functions as an open button of the first link that initiates a media player embedded application—which acts as the second application corresponding to the link—while the image represents a thumbnail of the second application (or a default thumbnail) presented within the first application (the chat), see ¶ 221, figs. 8A-8C)
Independent Claim 34:
Claim(s) 34 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 22, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 35:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 35 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 23, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 37:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 37 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 25, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 40:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 40 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 32, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
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.
Claim(s) 24, 26-27, 36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1), as applied to claims 22, 23, 25, 35 and 37 above, and further in view of Cheng; Junzhang (hereinafter Cheng – US 20230017694 A1).
Claim 24:
The rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein: replacing, by the terminal device, the picture at the position of the first link on the interface of the first application with the access page of the first link comprises: replacing, by the terminal device, a view control at the position of the first link on the interface of the first application with a first [...] control; and assigning, by the terminal device, a first interface of the first [...] control to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link; and adding, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application comprises: adding, by the terminal device, a first [...] control to the interface of the first application; and assigning, by the terminal device, a first interface of the first [...] control to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link (the playing of the video in the embedded media player application is considered both “replacing” a view control [a still image/picture when triggered is replaced with a moving picture], “assigning” an interface and to “adding” the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application [the video is “added” to the interface of the messaging application], ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E. see 112(b) note concerning the repeated assigning step. A second application is embedded into a first application, as mentioned above. The display obtaining [fetching] of the access page is understood as being done not only “through a second application”, as in claim 22, but by the second application, and that a second interface [e.g., moving image, or “video” playback] is created for the access page [a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link].
Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Cheng teaches:
that the control is a “surfaceview” control (SurfaceView provides an independent, hardware-accelerated drawing surface that does not share the same drawing surface as its host window. The SurfaceView may be implemented in picture-in-picture mode or floating window mode. By replacing a standard view with a SurfaceView and assigning its interface to the second application's access page, the terminal achieves efficient, high-performance rendering for embedded content (like game engines) on a separate thread, Cheng ¶ 56.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rodriguez to include that the control is a “surfaceview” control, as taught by Cheng.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the embedding of the second application’s interface in a known fashion—e.g., by enabling seamless multitasking, allowing users to continue a game in a dedicated sub-interface while operating other services, using a surfaceview control, which is known to achieve a complex and efficient UI without causing a failure in timely responding to an operation of a user, see Cheng ¶¶ 19 and 56.
Claim 26:
The rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches that the full-screen mode can be entered when the device is in landscape mode, ¶ 94.
Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Cheng teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a third operation, wherein the third operation is an operation of canceling full-screen display of the access page of the first link; and displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application in response to the third operation (when an interface is displayed in full-screen mode in a landscape mode, and the user turns the device [third operation] to portrait mode, the device cancels the full screen mode, ¶¶ 130-133 and fig. 15. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, in implementing Cheng to Rodriguez, to have realized that canceling the landscape mode would lead to a display before entering the full scree mode [displaying…the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rodriguez to include wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a third operation, wherein the third operation is an operation of canceling full-screen display of the access page of the first link; and displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application in response to the third operation, as taught by Cheng.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the feasibility of the method by allowing the user to perform actions in the first application when needed, Cheng ¶ 133.
Claim 27:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Cheng teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed on the interface of the first application, in response to the access page of the first link being moved to a screen boundary because of sliding up or sliding down the interface of the first application, creating, by the terminal device, a floating interface, and assigning the floating interface to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link. (the moving, creating, and assigning is reflected in a method where an independent SurfaceView interface is moved to a screen boundary via user input, e.g., being drag toward the top and right screen boundaries, creating a floating interface (moving, creating), and assigning that floating interface of the second application when, thus facilitating a flexible display of an embedded application, ¶¶ 56, 194 and 196 and fig. 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rodriguez to include wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed on the interface of the first application, in response to the access page of the first link being moved to a screen boundary because of sliding up or sliding down the interface of the first application, creating, by the terminal device, a floating interface, and assigning the floating interface to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link, as taught by Cheng.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the embedding of the second application’s interface in a known and flexible fashion—e.g., by enabling seamless multitasking, allowing users to continue a game in a dedicated sub-interface while operating other services, using a surfaceview control, which is known to achieve a complex and efficient UI without causing a failure in timely responding to an operation of a user, see Cheng ¶¶ 19 and 56, and in a way that is also flexible, based on the user’s being able to reposition the sub-interface [embedded interface] as needed, Cheng ¶ 196.
Claim 36:
The rejection of claim 35 is incorporated. Claim(s) 36 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 24, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 38:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Claim(s) 38 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 26, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 39:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 39 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 27, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230017694 A1), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Chaudhri; Imran A. et al. (hereinafter Chaudhri – US 20170357320 A1).
Claim 28:
The rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Rodriguez-Cheng does not appear to expressly teach, but Chaudhri teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed in floating mode, in response to the access page of the first link being farther than a preset threshold away from the screen boundary because of sliding up or sliding down the interface of the first application, displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application (operation cancellation occurs when an input includes a subsequent movement of the first contact (reverse movement) in a direction opposite the movement in the first direction and the subsequent movement exceeds a threshold distance or location in the reverse direction, ¶ 644, wherein a location threshold is a threshold distance away from an edge of the display [preset threshold away from the screen boundary], ¶ 624. Wherein when a movement of an item fails to meet a criteria, the item is returned to its original location, ¶ 651. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying Chaudhri to Rodriguez-Cheng, the cancellation of a dragging of the floating interface would result in returning the floating interface to its original position [displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Rodriguez to include wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed in floating mode, in response to the access page of the first link being farther than a preset threshold away from the screen boundary because of sliding up or sliding down the interface of the first application, displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application, as taught by Chaudhri.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the method by providing the functionality of accommodating a user’s desire to cancel an operation, Chaudhri ¶¶ 631.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230017694 A1), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Opara; Edward et al. (hereinafter Opara – US 20230143275 A1).
Claim 29:
The rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Opara teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed in floating mode, dynamically adjusting, by the terminal device, a size of the access page of the first link based on a position relationship between a first element on the interface of the first application and the access page of the first link, wherein the size of the access page of the first link is related to a size of the first element (dragged content is automatically resized when it gets near to another object, e.g., a clipboard menu, ¶ 60 and fig. 3A, wherein the resizing is done based on the size of the another object, e.g., based on the size of the icons within the menu, ¶ 61 and fig. 3B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Rodriguez to include wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed in floating mode, dynamically adjusting, by the terminal device, a size of the access page of the first link based on a position relationship between a first element on the interface of the first application and the access page of the first link, wherein the size of the access page of the first link is related to a size of the first element, as taught by Opara.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the accuracy and usability of the method, e.g., by making easier and more accurate to move content from one place to another, Opara ¶ 60.
Claim(s) 33 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1), as applied to claims 22 and 34 above, and further in view of Hunter; Valerie et al. (hereinafter Hunter – US 20180000453 A1).
Claim 33:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches that “if the embedded application is a media player application that displays a particular type of content data such as movie data and image data…, the embedded interface can be sized larger to view the content data”, ¶ 95.
Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Hunter teaches:
wherein when the access page of the first link is displayed on the interface of the first application, an area occupied by the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application is greater than an area occupied by the first link on the interface of the first application (when an object representing media is selected, the size of the object is enlarged to an appropriate size for viewing, ¶ 67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rodriguez to include wherein when the access page of the first link is displayed on the interface of the first application, an area occupied by the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application is greater than an area occupied by the first link on the interface of the first application, as taught by Hunter.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to ensure that the size is appropriate for viewing, Hunter ¶ 67 and fig. 8, and Rodriguez ¶ 95.
Claim 41:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 41 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 33, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Non-Statutory 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 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 11314388 B2 in view of one or more of Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1), Cheng (US 20230017694 A1), Chaudhri (US 20170357320 A1), Opara (US 20230143275 A1), and Hunter (US 20180000453 A1).
Claim(s) 22-23, 25, 30-32, 34-35, 37 and 40 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. (hereinafter “Patent”) US 11314388 B2 in view of Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1).
Patent No. US 11314388 B2 Claim 13 recites:
13. A method for displaying applications on a touch sensitive display of a terminal, comprising: receiving a first input indicating a request to launch a first application; launching the first application in response to receiving the first input; displaying a first user interface of the first application on the touch sensitive display; receiving a second input indicating a request to launch a second application on the touch sensitive display; launching the second application in response to receiving the second input; displaying a second user interface of the second application on the touch sensitive display; receiving a third input indicating a request to launch a third application; launching the third application in response to receiving the third input; displaying a third user interface of the third application on the touch sensitive display; detecting a first touch duration or a first touch area applied by a fourth input at a first location on the third user interface of the third application; displaying first content of the second application at a first area on the touch sensitive display in response to detecting the first touch duration or the first touch area applied by the fourth input at the first location, wherein the first content of the second application corresponds to a part of the second user interface of the second application, wherein the first area is located entirely within the third user interface of the third application, and wherein a first center of the first content of the second application is located where the first touch duration or the first touch area is detected; detecting a second touch duration or a second touch area applied by a fifth input at a second location on the first content of the second application; and displaying second content of the first application at a second area on the touch sensitive display in response to the second touch duration or the second touch area applied by the fifth input at the second first location, wherein the second content of the first application corresponds to a part of the first user interface of the first application, wherein the second area of the first application is located entirely within the first area of the second application, wherein a second center of the second content of the first application is located where the second touch duration or the second touch area is detected, and wherein the third user interface of the third application, the first content of the second application, and the second content of the first application are displayed simultaneously on the touch sensitive display.
Instant Claim 22
Patent US 11314388 B2 Claim 13
Comparison
A method, comprising:
A method for displaying applications on a touch sensitive display of a terminal, comprising:
displaying, by a terminal device, an interface of a first application, wherein the interface of the first application comprises a first link;
display a first user interface of the first application on the touch sensitive display;
similar except that the Instant includes the link in the first application's interface, which isn't required in the Patent. However, the request to launch a second application serves as a link.
receiving, by the terminal device, a first operation, wherein the first operation is an operation of opening the first link;
receive a second input indicating a request to launch a second application on the touch sensitive display;
similar, but worded differently
and obtaining, by the terminal device in response to the first operation, an access page of the first link through a second application, and displaying the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application.
launch the second application in response to receiving the second input; and display second content of the first application at a second area on the touch sensitive display in response to the second touch duration or the second touch area applied by the fifth input at the second location, wherein the second content of the first application corresponds to a part of the first user interface of the first application, wherein the second area of the first application is located entirely within the first area of the second application, wherein a second center of the second content of the first application is located where the second touch duration or the second touch area is detected, and wherein the third user interface of the third application, the first content of the second application, and the second content of the first application are displayed simultaneously on the touch sensitive display
similar, as they both display content of second application within interface of a first application. The obtaining and displaying in Instant are similar to the launching and displaying of the Patent. However, the Patent doesn’t do this displaying in response to "the first operation".
As reflected in the table above, the Patent encompasses the main functional elements of the Instant claim 22. The Instant describes the high-level steps of initiating a first application, receiving a user action to open a link within it, and rendering that link's content via a second application within the first's interface, which fundamentally constitute the "receive input, launch application, and display content" workflow specified in the detailed method of the Patent.
However, the Patent doesn’t teach, but Rodriguez teaches (as explained in the 102 rejection section above):
wherein the interface of the first application comprises a first link; (on a user device [a terminal device] an interface of a first application, e.g., a messaging application, displays a list of messages, wherein one or more of the messages can serve as links to playable media, ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
that the obtaining of the access page is “in response to the first operation” (the video is obtained from storage, and played, via an embedded media player application, on the interface of the messaging application, ¶¶ 31 and 221, and figs. 8A and 8C-8E. Playing a video after a user operation acts as an access page because browsers consider the interaction a user operation that grants permission to unblocks/initiates media playback)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Patent to include wherein the interface of the first application comprises a first link, and that the obtaining of the access page is “in response to the first operation”, as taught by Rodriguez.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to narrow the scope of the Patent to apply to implement the triggering integrated application display in a way known in the art, and to broaden the scope to include only first and second application and additional limitations of the dependent claims below. Note that as can be seen in the Patent claim 13 reproduced above, the Patent enables launching three applications and, through specific touch gestures on the third app, simultaneously displaying nested content from the second and first applications within the active third user interface.
Independent Claim(s) 34 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 22, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 23-33, and 35-41 are also obvious using similar rationale as presented above for claim 34, and further based on similar reasons as explained in the mappings/rationales in the 102/103 sections above.
Independent Claim 22:
Rodriguez teaches:
A method, comprising:
displaying, by a terminal device, an interface of a first application, wherein the interface of the first application comprises a first link; (on a user device [a terminal device] an interface of a first application, e.g., a messaging application, displays a list of messages, wherein one or more of the messages can serve as links to playable media, ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
receiving, by the terminal device, a first operation, wherein the first operation is an operation of opening the first link; (a user provides a command, such as a selection of a message [first operation], to the terminal for playing [opening] the video [the first link], ¶ 221.)
and obtaining, by the terminal device in response to the first operation, an access page of the first link through a second application, (the video is obtained from storage, and played, via an embedded media player application, on the interface of the messaging application, ¶¶ 31 and 221, and figs. 8A and 8C-8E. Playing a video after a user operation acts as an access page because browsers consider the interaction a user operation that grants permission to unblocks/initiates media playback)
and displaying the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application. (the video is played, via an embedded media player application, on the interface of the messaging application, ¶¶ 31 and 221, and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
Claim 23:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application comprises:
replacing, by the terminal device, a picture at a position of the first link on the interface of the first application with the access page of the first link;
or adding, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application. (the playing of the video in the embedded media player application is considered both to “replace” a picture at the position of the first link [a still image/picture is replaced with a moving picture when played], and to “add” the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application [the video is “added” to the interface of the messaging application], ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
Claim 25:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a second operation, wherein the second operation is an operation of switching the access page of the first link for full-screen display; and creating, by the terminal device, a full-screen interface, and assigning the full-screen interface to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link in response to the second operation. (e.g., full screen control 816 and 876 allows for the embedded interface to be displayed in the entire screen, ¶¶ 364 and 370 and figs. 8A and 8C. Here, the embedded video necessarily is played on a bigger interface, which is interpreted as a creating of “a full-screen interface” and assigning that interface to “a second interface”.)
Claim 30:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the terminal device, a fourth operation, wherein the fourth operation is an operation of closing the access page of the first link; and closing, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link in response to the fourth operation, and skipping displaying the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application. (the receiving, closing, and skipping displaying is reflected in that a user can input a close command to close an embedded application interface and remove it from the display [skipping displaying], e.g., on a close control 822, ¶¶ 135 and 364 and fig. 8A)
Claim 31:
The rejection of claim 30 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the terminal device displays the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application by replacing a picture at a position of the first link on the interface of the first application with the access page of the first link; (the playing of the video in the embedded media player application is considered both to “replace” a picture at the position of the first link [a still image/picture is replaced with a moving picture when played], ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E)
and after the, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link, the method further comprises: (For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets limitation(s) as being directed to a “re-displaying” step [see below] after the “closing” of the access page of the first link. Correction required. In Rodriguez, the video can be paused, or otherwise stopped, ¶¶ 83, and 231. Here, this stopping of video playback is broadly interpreted as closing the access page of the first link, since there the access to video playback is temporarily closed)
re-displaying, by the terminal device, the first link on the interface of the first application. (after a video stops playing, the user can replay at a later time, ¶ 219. as mentioned above for claim 22, playback can be performed by selecting a message [link] on a chat conversation, ¶ 221. Therefore, the displaying of the message allowing for replaying the video is interpreted as “re-displaying…the first link…”)
Claim 32:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein the interface of the first application comprises the first link by the interface of the first application comprising a thumbnail of the second application, a default thumbnail, an open button of the first link, and wherein the second application comprises an application corresponding to the first link or a default application on the terminal device. (chat conversation interface necessarily teaches the claimed elements because the "selectable message" (e.g., an image of a video with a play button) functions as an open button of the first link that initiates a media player embedded application—which acts as the second application corresponding to the link—while the image represents a thumbnail of the second application (or a default thumbnail) presented within the first application (the chat), see ¶ 221, figs. 8A-8C)
Independent Claim 34:
Claim(s) 34 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 22, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 35:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 35 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 23, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 37:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 37 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 25, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 40:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 40 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 32, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 24, 26-27, 36 and 38-39 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 11314388 B2 in view of Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1), as applied to claims 22, 23, 25, 35 and 37 above, and further in view of Cheng; Junzhang (hereinafter Cheng – US 20230017694 A1).
Claim 24:
The rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches:
wherein: replacing, by the terminal device, the picture at the position of the first link on the interface of the first application with the access page of the first link comprises: replacing, by the terminal device, a view control at the position of the first link on the interface of the first application with a first [...] control; and assigning, by the terminal device, a first interface of the first [...] control to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link; and adding, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application comprises: adding, by the terminal device, a first [...] control to the interface of the first application; and assigning, by the terminal device, a first interface of the first [...] control to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link (the playing of the video in the embedded media player application is considered both “replacing” a view control [a still image/picture when triggered is replaced with a moving picture], “assigning” an interface and to “adding” the access page of the first link to the interface of the first application [the video is “added” to the interface of the messaging application], ¶¶ 221 and 360-361 and figs. 8A and 8C-8E. see 112(b) note concerning the repeated assigning step. A second application is embedded into a first application, as mentioned above. The display obtaining [fetching] of the access page is understood as being done not only “through a second application”, as in claim 22, but by the second application, and that a second interface [e.g., moving image, or “video” playback] is created for the access page [a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link].
Patent-Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Cheng teaches:
that the control is a “surfaceview” control (SurfaceView provides an independent, hardware-accelerated drawing surface that does not share the same drawing surface as its host window. The SurfaceView may be implemented in picture-in-picture mode or floating window mode. By replacing a standard view with a SurfaceView and assigning its interface to the second application's access page, the terminal achieves efficient, high-performance rendering for embedded content (like game engines) on a separate thread, Cheng ¶ 56.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Patent to include that the control is a “surfaceview” control, as taught by Cheng.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the embedding of the second application’s interface in a known fashion—e.g., by enabling seamless multitasking, allowing users to continue a game in a dedicated sub-interface while operating other services, using a surfaceview control, which is known to achieve a complex and efficient UI without causing a failure in timely responding to an operation of a user, see Cheng ¶¶ 19 and 56.
Claim 26:
The rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches that the full-screen mode can be entered when the device is in landscape mode, ¶ 94.
Patent-Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Cheng teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a third operation, wherein the third operation is an operation of canceling full-screen display of the access page of the first link; and displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application in response to the third operation (when an interface is displayed in full-screen mode in a landscape mode, and the user turns the device [third operation] to portrait mode, the device cancels the full screen mode, ¶¶ 130-133 and fig. 15. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, in implementing Cheng to Patent, to have realized that canceling the landscape mode would lead to a display before entering the full screen mode [displaying…the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Patent to include wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a third operation, wherein the third operation is an operation of canceling full-screen display of the access page of the first link; and displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application in response to the third operation, as taught by Cheng.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the feasibility of the method by allowing the user to perform actions in the first application when needed, Cheng ¶ 133.
Claim 27:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Cheng teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed on the interface of the first application, in response to the access page of the first link being moved to a screen boundary because of sliding up or sliding down the interface of the first application, creating, by the terminal device, a floating interface, and assigning the floating interface to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link. (the moving, creating, and assigning is reflected in a method where an independent SurfaceView interface is moved to a screen boundary via user input, e.g., being drag toward the top and right screen boundaries, creating a floating interface (moving, creating), and assigning that floating interface of the second application when, thus facilitating a flexible display of an embedded application, ¶¶ 56, 194 and 196 and fig. 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Patent to include wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed on the interface of the first application, in response to the access page of the first link being moved to a screen boundary because of sliding up or sliding down the interface of the first application, creating, by the terminal device, a floating interface, and assigning the floating interface to a second interface created when the second application obtains the access page of the first link, as taught by Cheng.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the embedding of the second application’s interface in a known and flexible fashion—e.g., by enabling seamless multitasking, allowing users to continue a game in a dedicated sub-interface while operating other services, using a surfaceview control, which is known to achieve a complex and efficient UI without causing a failure in timely responding to an operation of a user, see Cheng ¶¶ 19 and 56, and in a way that is also flexible, based on the user’s being able to reposition the sub-interface [embedded interface] as needed, Cheng ¶ 196.
Claim 36:
The rejection of claim 35 is incorporated. Claim(s) 36 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 24, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 38:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Claim(s) 38 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 26, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 39:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 39 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 27, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230017694 A1), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Chaudhri; Imran A. et al. (hereinafter Chaudhri – US 20170357320 A1). is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 11314388 B2 in view of Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1) and Cheng (US 20230017694 A1), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Chaudhri; Imran A. et al. (hereinafter Chaudhri – US 20170357320 A1).
Claim 28:
The rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Patent-Rodriguez-Cheng does not appear to expressly teach, but Chaudhri teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed in floating mode, in response to the access page of the first link being farther than a preset threshold away from the screen boundary because of sliding up or sliding down the interface of the first application, displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application (operation cancellation occurs when an input includes a subsequent movement of the first contact (reverse movement) in a direction opposite the movement in the first direction and the subsequent movement exceeds a threshold distance or location in the reverse direction, ¶ 644, wherein a location threshold is a threshold distance away from an edge of the display [preset threshold away from the screen boundary], ¶ 624. Wherein when a movement of an item fails to meet a criteria, the item is returned to its original location, ¶ 651. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying Chaudhri to Patent-Rodriguez-Cheng, the cancellation of a dragging of the floating interface would result in returning the floating interface to its original position [displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Patent to include wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed in floating mode, in response to the access page of the first link being farther than a preset threshold away from the screen boundary because of sliding up or sliding down the interface of the first application, displaying, by the terminal device, the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application, as taught by Chaudhri.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the method by providing the functionality of accommodating a user’s desire to cancel an operation, Chaudhri ¶¶ 631.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Patent US 11314388 B2 in view of Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1) and Cheng (US 20230017694 A1), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Opara; Edward et al. (hereinafter Opara – US 20230143275 A1).
Claim 29:
The rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Patent-Cheng-Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Opara teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed in floating mode, dynamically adjusting, by the terminal device, a size of the access page of the first link based on a position relationship between a first element on the interface of the first application and the access page of the first link, wherein the size of the access page of the first link is related to a size of the first element (dragged content is automatically resized when it gets near to another object, e.g., a clipboard menu, ¶ 60 and fig. 3A, wherein the resizing is done based on the size of the another object, e.g., based on the size of the icons within the menu, ¶ 61 and fig. 3B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Patent to include wherein the method further comprises: when the access page of the first link is displayed in floating mode, dynamically adjusting, by the terminal device, a size of the access page of the first link based on a position relationship between a first element on the interface of the first application and the access page of the first link, wherein the size of the access page of the first link is related to a size of the first element, as taught by Opara.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the accuracy and usability of the method, e.g., by making easier and more accurate to move content from one place to another, Opara ¶ 60.
Claim(s) 33 and 41 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent US 11314388 B2 in view of Rodriguez (US 20180367483 A1), as applied to claims 22 and 34 above, and further in view of Hunter; Valerie et al. (hereinafter Hunter – US 20180000453 A1).
Claim 33:
The rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Rodriguez further teaches that “if the embedded application is a media player application that displays a particular type of content data such as movie data and image data…, the embedded interface can be sized larger to view the content data”, ¶ 95.
Patent-Rodriguez does not appear to expressly teach, but Hunter teaches:
wherein when the access page of the first link is displayed on the interface of the first application, an area occupied by the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application is greater than an area occupied by the first link on the interface of the first application (when an object representing media is selected, the size of the object is enlarged to an appropriate size for viewing, ¶ 67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Patent to include wherein when the access page of the first link is displayed on the interface of the first application, an area occupied by the access page of the first link on the interface of the first application is greater than an area occupied by the first link on the interface of the first application, as taught by Hunter.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to ensure that the size is appropriate for viewing, Hunter ¶ 67 and fig. 8, and Rodriguez ¶ 95.
Claim 41:
The rejection of claim 34 is incorporated. Claim(s) 41 is/are directed to a device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 33, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Langholz; Benjamin S. et al. US 20210191589 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing displaying a digital video within a communication thread, ¶ 90 and fig. 4E.
Ying; Yulong US 20180004396 A1, is pertinent to claim 24 for disclosing inserting a second user interface (SurfaceView interface), into a first user interface for displaying a video in the first interface, Ying Claim 7 and ¶¶ 22 and 95.
Mughal; Mushtaq Ahmad et al. US 20060291817 A1, is pertinent to claim 25 for disclosing toggling between a full screen and PIP display, ¶ 12.
The following are presented in the 101 rejection section above as evidence of common concepts, but not relied upon as prior art under 102/103:
Tofinetti; Michael N. et al.US 20120005607 A1
KIM; Kibeom US 20150058804 A1
YING; Yulong US 20180004396 A1
Rokos; John P.US 20220075839 A1
Mughal; Mushtaq Ahmad et al.US 20060291817 A1
Zhou; Xingchen et al.US 20230108680 A1
Larabie-Belanger; Maxime US 20180189073 A1
Walkin; Brandon M. et al.US 20200326839 A1
MO; Boyu US 20230127743 A1
LIU; Yue US 20220413671 A1
Repka, Mikko US 20050223341 A1
Benson; Doug et al.US 5808610 A
Langholz; Benjamin S. et al. US 20210191589 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights