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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Application's amendment/response filed on 03/11/2026, which has been entered and made of record.
Claims 15-34 are pending in this application.
The objections to Claims 15, 25, and 34 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 15 in Page 10 regarding Examiner’s mapping of the “user interface manager” of reference Balasurbramanian to “the third process” and “the fourth process” cited in claim 15 is persuasive. Applicant notes that the under interface “does not receive” a plurality of rule but is instead “itself comprises a plurality of rules” to indicate the layout of the user interface. Examiner agrees that the user interface manager would not correspond to the third process / fourth process. Instead, new rejections are made in which the third process / fourth process would correspond to the “user interface generator” of Balasurbramanian which executes the user interface manger. More details can be found in the 103 rejection below.
Also Applicant notes that the user interface manager is not “explicitly or implicitly described as a ‘process’ which is a term having specific meaning in the art.” Since Examiner is now remapping the claim limitation from the “user interface manager” to the “user interface generator”, Examiner will argue that the user interface generator can be considered as a “process” within the field of the art. According to the first paragraph in the Process (computing) article found on Wikipedia (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_(computing)), “In computing, a process is the instance of a computer program that is being executed by one or many threads.” In other words, a process is simply an active computer program.
Reference Balasurbramanian states in [0040], “Furthermore, any of the functionalities of the system analyzer 142, user interface selector 144, and user interface generator 146 may be partially, or entirely, implemented in hardware and/or in the processing unit (also referred to herein as a processor) 104. For example, the functionality may be implemented with an application specific integrated circuit, in logic implemented in the processing unit 104, or in any other device.” In this case, “logic implemented in the processing unit” would mean that the user interface generator can be considered as an executed computer program and thus a “process” as understood commonly within the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-16, 25-26, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasurbramanian et al. (US 20210286632 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Balasurbramanian) in view of Bennett et al. (US 20110161843 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Bennett).
Regarding Claim 15, Balasurbramanian discloses A method, applied to an electronic device, (See [0004], “In another embodiment described herein, a method for generating a user interface”)
wherein the electronic device comprises at least two display regions, the at least two display regions comprise a first display region and a second display region, (See [0045], “For example, user interface controls can be displayed in regions of a display screen based on the rules.” Thus implying multiple regions, which then means a first and a second display region.)
the method comprising: receiving, by a third process, a first plurality of rules generated by a first process, wherein the first plurality of rules is configured to draw an interface associated with the first process, and the interface associated with the first process is to be displayed on the first display region; generating, by the third process, a first interface based on the first plurality of rules, wherein the first interface comprises the interface associated with the first process, and the first interface is configured to be displayed on the first display region; (See [0039], “A user interface manager, as referred to herein, can include any suitable application that can generate a visual appearance for an operating system. In some embodiments, the user interface generator 146 can execute the user interface manager to generate a user interface for the system, wherein the type of the user interface manager comprises a plurality of rules to indicate a layout of the user interface.” Also see [0046], “The plurality of rules presented to user interface generator 146 may create any user experience desired.” Also see [0040], “Furthermore, any of the functionalities of the system analyzer 142, user interface selector 144, and user interface generator 146 may be partially, or entirely, implemented in hardware and/or in the processing unit (also referred to herein as a processor) 104. For example, the functionality may be implemented with an application specific integrated circuit, in logic implemented in the processing unit 104, or in any other device.”
In this case, a “user interface manager” corresponds to a first plurality of rules as it is used to indicate the layout of the user interface. Then the “user interface generator” which generates the user interface using the user interface manger, corresponds to the third process which receives a first plurality of rules and generates the interface based on the first plurality of rules. Note that the user interface generator can be considered as a “process” based [0040] teaching that it can basically be a computer program and an active computer program would commonly be known as a process.
Lastly see [0056], “Furthermore, the tangible, computer-readable storage media 400 may include code to direct the processor 402 to perform the steps of the current method.” Here, “code” would correspond to the first process, which generates a first plurality of rules needed to draw the interface.)
receiving, by a fourth process, a second plurality of rules generated by a second process, wherein the second plurality of rules is configured to draw an interface associated with the second process, and the interface associated with the second process is to be displayed on the second display region; and generating, by the fourth process, a second interface based on the second plurality of rules, wherein the second interface comprises the interface associated with the second process, and the second interface is configured to be displayed on the second display region. (See [0039] and [0046] teaching a user interface manager which is the plurality of rules used to generate a user interface and a user interface generator which uses the user interface manager/receives a plurality of rules to generate the user interface. See [0040] teaching that the user interface manager can be consider as a process. See [0056] teaching code to generate those rules.
See [0048], “method 200 can include generating a user interface that includes at least one active application and at least one visible application. . . In some embodiments, the method 200 can also include managing at least two subordinate user interface managers, wherein each of the at least two subordinate user interface managers is to execute a separate application.” Lastly, see Fig. 5 showing multiple user interface managers. Here, Balasurbramanian teaches having more than one user interface manager (a first and second plurality of rules). The mention of the subordinate user interface managers executing a separate application would correspond to “the second interface is configured to be displayed on the second display region” as it would be common to have separate application interfaces be in different regions of the screen and thus “the second display region”.
Also see [0047], “For example, a mobile device may be inserted into a docking station that provides a larger display screen. The user interface generator 146 can detect a change to the available hardware resources of the mobile device and generate a desktop based user interface to replace a mobile device based user interface.”
Balasurbramanian also teaches that the user interface generator can detect the specific resources of the current hardware and correspondingly generate the user interface for it. Balasurbramanian also gives an example of a generating a desktop based UI to replace a mobile device based UI. Thus, it can be considered as the user interface generator receiving a second set of rules to generate a second interface, which makes the user interface generator correspond to the fourth process.)
However, Balasurbramanian fails to explicitly disclose the method comprising: receiving, by a third process, a first render tree generated by a first process, wherein the first render tree is configured to draw an interface associated with the first process, and the interface associated with the first process is to be displayed on the first display region;
generating, by the third process, a first interface based on the first render tree, wherein the first interface comprises the interface associated with the first process, and the first interface is configured to be displayed on the first display region;
receiving, by a fourth process, a second render tree generated by a second process, wherein the second render tree is configured to draw an interface associated with the second process, and the interface associated with the second process is to be displayed on the first display region; and
generating, by the fourth process, a second interface based on the second render tree, wherein the second interface comprises the interface associated with the second process, and the second interface is configured to be displayed on the second display region.
Bennett teaches using a render tree within the process of generating an interface. (See [0092], “Rendering engine 404 may generate a render tree from the DOM tree. Rendering engine 404 may perform a layout process to determine screen coordinates for each node of the render tree, and may traverse and "paint" each node of the render tree on the display screen in a browser window.” In combination with Balasurbramanian [0039] teaching a user interface generator to generate a user interface using a user interface manager, which is a plurality of rules, instead the user interface generator can use a render tree which would be a data structure that stores the plurality of rules needed to draw the interface. Further, as Balasurbramanian [0048] and Fig. 5 teaches multiple user interface managers, the combination with Bennett would thus imply a first and second render tree.)
Note that Bennett also additionally teaches the limitation wherein the electronic device comprises at least two display regions, the at least two display regions comprise a first display region and a second display region, (See [0097], “For instance, regionally configurable 2D/3Dx display 418c may display 2D content in one or more regions of a display screen while simultaneously displaying 3D content in one or more other regions of the display screen.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Balasurbramanian with Bennett to include using render trees when drawing the interface of the display regions.
The motivation to combine Balasurbramanian with Bennett would have been obvious as both arts are within the same field of generating interfaces (See Bennett [0092]). The benefit of using a render tree would be more efficient rendering and better performance.
Regarding Claim 16, Balasurbramanian in view of Bennett disclose The method according to claim 15, further comprising: before receiving, by the third process, the first render tree and before receiving, by the fourth process, the second render tree: determining, by a fifth process, that the at least two display regions comprise the first display region and the second display region; and (See Bennett [0058], “In further examples, the browser may determine parameters to be associated with displayed regions and content based on other factors, such as a type of content to be displayed, a filename for the content, configuration information stored at a media server for the content, etc.” In this case, the process of determining parameters associated with the displayed regions corresponds to “a fifth process” and this would obviously happened before the third and fourth process of generating the interfaces. Note that parameters associated with displayed regions would include determining that the at least two display regions comprise a first display and second display region.)
generating, by the fifth process, the third process and the fourth process, wherein the third process and the fourth process are child processes of the fifth process. (See Bennett [0058], “In further examples, the browser may determine parameters to be associated with displayed regions . . . The web browsers may generate configuration commands based on the determined parameters that cause display screens to be configured to display the 2D and/or 3D content.” In this case, generating configuration commands based on the parameters to display content is similar to generating the third and fourth process as child processes of the fifth process. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 15 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 25, Balasurbramanian in view of Bennett disclose An electronic device, comprising: at least two display regions, wherein the at the at least two display regions comprise a first display region and a second display region; (See Balasurbramanian [0045], “For example, user interface controls can be displayed in regions of a display screen based on the rules.” Note that display screen implies an electronic device.)
one or more processors; and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is coupled to the one or more processors, the at least one memory stores computer program code, the computer program code comprises computer instructions, and the one or more processors execute the computer instructions to cause the electronic device to: (See Balasurbramanian [0023], “The example system 100 includes a computing device 102. The computing device 102 includes a processing unit 104, a system memory 106, and a system bus 108.”)
receive, by a third process of the electronic device, a first render tree generated by a first process, wherein the first render tree is configured to draw an interface associated with the first process, and the interface associated with the first process is to be displayed on the first display region;
generate, by the third process of the electronic device, a first interface based on the first render tree, wherein the first interface comprises the interface associated with the first process, and the first interface is configured to be displayed on the first display region;
receive, by a fourth process of the electronic device, a second render tree generated by a second process, wherein the second render tree is configured to draw an interface associated with the second process, and the interface associated with the second process is to be displayed on the second display region; and
generate, by the fourth process of the electronic device, a second interface based on the second render tree, wherein the second interface comprises the interface associated with the second process, and the second interface is configured to be displayed on the second display region. (The above limitations are similar to those of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 26, Claim 26 has similar limitations as to Claim 16 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 34, Balasurbramanian in view of Bennett disclose A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing at least one program comprising instructions that, upon execution by at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is associated with at least two display regions, the at least two display regions comprising a first display region and a second display region, the at least one processor is configured to: (See Balasurbramanian [0028], “The computer 102 also includes other computer-readable media, such as removable/non-removable, volatile/non-volatile computer storage media.”)
receive, by a third process, a first render tree generated by a first process, wherein the first render tree is configured to draw an interface associated with the first process, and the interface associated with the first process is to be displayed on the first display region;
generate, by the third process, a first interface based on the first render tree, wherein the first interface comprises the interface associated with the first process, and the first interface is configured to be displayed on the first display region;
receive, by a fourth process, a second render tree generated by a second process, wherein the second render tree is configured to draw an interface associated with the second process, and the interface associated with the second process is to be displayed on the second display region; and
generate, by the fourth process, a second interface based on the second render tree, wherein the second interface comprises the interface associated with the second process, and the second interface is configured to be displayed on the second display region. (The above limitations are similar to those of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1.)
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasurbramanian in view of Bennett and in further view of Liu (CN 110347464 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Balasurbramanian in view of Bennett fail to explicitly disclose The method according to claim 15, wherein receiving, by the third process, the first render tree generated by the first process comprises: receiving, by the third process, the first render tree based on inter-process communication, wherein the inter-process communication comprises at least one of Binder, an interface definition language (AIDL), a shared memory, or a socket.
Liu teaches receiving, by the third process, the first render tree based on inter-process communication, wherein the inter-process communication comprises at least one of Binder, an interface definition language (AIDL), a shared memory, or a socket. (See Abstract, “the front-end application program sends the map-layer parameter to the application program to be displayed by said inter-process communication link; . . . The method can by application directly to be displayed on the display area rendering the second user interface and the first user interface of split-screen display”
Also see Page 12 Paragraph 5, “based on the interface definition language in addition to the above exemplary embodiment, Binder communication model or message processor Messenger establishment mode communication link other than inter-process, the invention also can use ContentProvider, Socket other IPC mechanism to realize the front-end application program with the application program to be displayed for cross communication.” In this case, the front end application program can be considered to correspond with the third process of generating an interface. In combination with Bennett teaching render trees, see Bennett [0092], it would have been obvious to have the render tree be based on the inter-process communication taught by Liu.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Balasurbramanian in view of Bennett with Liu to include inter-process communication for render trees.
The motivation to combine Balasurbramanian in view of Bennett with Liu would have been obvious as all the arts are within the field of user interface processing (see Liu Abstract). The benefit of having the render tree be based on inter-process communication is that relevant render information could be synchronized between separate processes.
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 27 has similar limitations as to Claim 17 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-24 and 28-33 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:
Regarding Claim 18, the cited prior art does not disclose or render obvious the combination of elements cited in the claims as a whole, Specifically, the cited prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations: sending, by the fifth process, a first vertical synchronization signal to the first process at a first frequency, wherein the first vertical synchronization signal indicates the first process to generate the first render tree, and the first frequency comprises a refresh frequency of the first display region; and receiving, by the third process, the first render tree at the first frequency. Thus Claim 18 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, the cited prior art does not disclose or render obvious the combination of elements cited in the claims as a whole, Specifically, the cited prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations: receiving, by the third process, a sixth render tree generated by a sixth process; and wherein generating, by the third process, the first interface based on the first render tree comprises: generating, by the third process, the first interface based on the first render tree and the sixth render tree, wherein the first interface further comprises an interface associated with the sixth process. Thus Claim 20 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claims 21-24, Claims 21-24 are objected to as being dependent upon Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 28 has similar limitations as to Claim 18 and therefore contains similar allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon Claim 28.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 has similar limitations as to Claim 20 and therefore contains similar allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claims 31-33, Claims 31-33 are objected to as being dependent upon Claim 30.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG G HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-4:30pm EST | Fri 7:30am-11:30am EST.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights