FINAL REJECTION, SECOND DETAILED ACTION
Status of Prosecution
The present application, 18/769,891 filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The application was filed on July 11, 2024 in the Office and is a continuation of application 17/819,820 filed on December 17, 2019 (issued as US Patent 12,056,340) which is a continuation of application 16/717,988 filed on December 17, 2019 (issued as US Patent 11,416,130) which in turn claims priority to provisional application 62/909191 filed on October 1, 2019.
The Office mailed a first detailed action, non-final rejection on February 2, 2026.
Applicant filed amendments with accompanying remarks and arguments on May 1, 2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are pending and all are rejected. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent. Claims 7 and 15 are canceled by amendment.
Status of the Claims
Claims 7 and 15 are canceled by amendment.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frederickson et al.(“Frederickson”) United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0351722 published on November 27, 2014 in view of Zhu, United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0278186 published on Oct. 1, 2015 in further view of Parker et al. (“Parker”), United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0184891, published on Aug. 17, 2006.
Claims 4, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frederickson et al.(“Frederickson”) United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0351722 published on November 27, 2014 in view of Zhu, United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0278186 published on Oct. 1, 2015 in further view of Parker et al. (“Parker”), United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0184891, published on Aug. 17, 2006 and in further view of Karstens United States Patent US 8,245,154 published on Aug. 14, 2012.
Response to Remarks and Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for the remarks and arguments submitted. Examiner has newly rejected the claims below with the application of Parker et al. (“Parker”), United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0184891, published on Aug. 17, 2006 which when combined with the existing references renders the claim obvious and unpatentable.
The claims stand rejected.
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.
A.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frederickson et al.(“Frederickson”) United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0351722 published on November 27, 2014 in view of Zhu, United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0278186 published on Oct. 1, 2015 in further view of Parker et al. (“Parker”), United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0184891, published on Aug. 17, 2006.
As to Claim 1, Frederickson teaches: A method enacted on a computing device, the computing device comprising a first display and a second display (Frederickson: par. 0020, two displays, [108A,B], the method comprising:
displaying a first application on the first display (Frederickson: Fig. 6, par.0039, icons representing applications [222] are displayed in the application launcher [194]);
displaying a recent applications list on the second display (Frederickson: Fig. 6, par. 0031, the [194] menu is a list of recent applications and may be displayed on the first or second display);
making the first application accessible from the recent applications list (Frederickson: par. 0039, when the application icon is activated or released from a drag (i.e. user input), the application window is launched, or opened; par. 0035, “launch” may mean initially opening or opening an already-running application window).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Frederickson may not explicitly teach: upon receiving indication of a second application being selected from the recent applications list, launching the second application on the first display stacked over the first application.
Zhu teaches in general concepts related to configuring an application template, which is configured to indicate applications to be launched and laid out on a screen (Zhu: Abstract). Specifically, Zhu teaches that the template may be used to launch the captured applications in a cascaded manner which Examiner asserts is a “stacked” manner (Zhu: par. 0025, the Google Maps application and a SMS application may be concurrently launched and displayed as tiled or cascaded).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Frederickson device by including computer instructions to allow for allowing a second application being selected and launching in a stacked manner as taught and disclosed by Yu. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to do so to reduce the number of steps in launching applications.
Frederickson and Zhu may not explicitly teach: dismissing the first application after a predetermined threshold of time of being stacked behind the second application, wherein the first application can be resumed by unstacking the second application within the predetermined threshold of time; and
after dismissal of the first application, making the first application accessible from the recent applications list.
Parker teaches in general concepts related to a user friendly display interface system that simplifying the display by removal of inactive windows(Parker: Abstract). Specifically, after a period of time of inactivity, the window is completely faded out, but before the time out occurs, the user is able to restore the window to a full active and visible state (Parker: Fig. 3, step. 76).
PNG
media_image2.png
763
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Frederickson-Zhu disclosures and teachings by including computer instructions to allow for the complete dismissal of the inactive application (stacked application) after a time period, but allowing for the reactivation in the interim as taught and suggested by Parker. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the user to allow inactive windows to go and minimize resource inefficiencies (Parker: par. 0006).
As to Claim 2, Frederickson, Zhu and Parker teach the limitations of claim 1.
Frederickson, Zhu and Parker as combined further teaches: upon receiving indication of a third application being selected from the recent applications list, launching the third application on the first display stacked over the second application (Examiner notes that nothing suggests that the third application may be different from the first, which would be a re-focus operation to restack the first application over the second application, thus switching).
As to Claim 3, Frederickson, Zhu and Parker teach the limitations of claim 2.
Frederickson, Zhu and Parker as combined further teaches: making the second application accessible from the recent applications list (Frederickson: Fig. 6, par. 0031, the [194] menu is a list of recent applications and may be displayed on the first or second display, which includes the second application).
As to Claim 5, Frederickson, Zhu and Parker teach the limitations of claim 1.
Frederickson further teaches: wherein the received indication of the second application being selected is from a user touch input (Frederickson: par. 0022, touch strokes may be accepted for input).
As to Claim 6, Frederickson, Zhu and Parker teach the limitations of claim 1.
Frederickson further teaches: using the recent applications list, launching the first application on the first display stacked over the second display (Frederickson: Fig. 6, par. 0031, the [194] menu is a list of recent applications and may be displayed on the first or second display, which may be selected to relaunch).
As to Claim 8, Frederickson, Zhu and Parker teach the limitations of claim 1.
Frederickson further teaches: unstacking the second application to resume the first application (Frederickson: par. 00451, displaying and undisplaying depending on which one has the focus and is active).
As to Claim 9, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. Frederickson further teaches processor, memory (Frederickson: pars. 0053-54).
As to Claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
As to Claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
As to Claim 13, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
As to Claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
As to Claim 16, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8.
B.
Claims 4, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frederickson et al.(“Frederickson”) United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0351722 published on November 27, 2014 in view of Zhu, United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0278186 published on Oct. 1, 2015 in further view of Parker et al. (“Parker”), United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0184891, published on Aug. 17, 2006 and in further view of Karstens United States Patent US 8,245,154 published on Aug. 14, 2012.
As to Claim 4, Frederickson, Zhu and Parker teach the limitations of claim 1.
Frederickson, Zhu and Parker may not explicitly teach: wherein the first application is made accessible from the recent applications list in a position indicating that it was a most recently opened application.
Karstens teaches in general concepts related to task switching among windows on a GUI. (Karstens: Abstract). Specifically, Karstens teaches that a list of applications that are to be switched through are ordered by which were most recently opened (Karstens: Fig. 3, col. 4, lines 28to 37, the applications are ordered by most-recently-used in [350]).
PNG
media_image3.png
694
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Frederickson-Zhu-Parker disclosures and teachings by ordering the applications by which were most recently used as taught by Karstens. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the cognitive burden on the user of having to understand the ordering of the applications to switch to.
As to Claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
As to Claim 17, Frederickson teaches: A method enacted on a computing device, the computing device comprising a first display and a second display(Frederickson: par. 0020, two displays, [108A,B), the method comprising:
displaying a first application on the first display; displaying a second application on the second display (Frederickson: Fig. 6, par.0039, icons representing applications [222] are displayed in the application launcher [194]).
Frederickson may not explicitly teach: moving a second application to the first display stacked over the first application.
Zhu teaches in general concepts related to configuring an application template, which is configured to indicate applications to be launched and laid out on a screen (Zhu: Abstract). Specifically, Zhu teaches that the template may be used to launch the captured applications in a cascaded manner which Examiner asserts is a “stacked” manner (Zhu: par. 0025, the Google Maps application and a SMS application may be concurrently launched and displayed as tiled or cascaded).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Frederickson device by including computer instructions to allow for allowing a second application being selected and launching in a stacked manner as taught and disclosed by Yu. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to do so to reduce the number of steps in launching applications.
Frederickson and Zhu may not explicitly teach: making the first application accessible from a recent applications list in a position indicating that it was a most recently opened application.
Karstens teaches in general concepts related to task switching among windows on a GUI. (Karstens: Abstract). Specifically, Karstens teaches that a list of applications that are to be switched through are ordered by which were most recently opened (Karstens: Fig. 3, col. 4, lines 28to 37, the applications are ordered by most-recently-used in [350]). The application is accessible through the task switching.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Frederickson-Zhu disclosures and teachings by ordering the applications by which were most recently used as taught by Karstens. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the cognitive burden on the user of having to understand the ordering of the applications to switch to.
Frederickson, Zhu and Parker may not explicitly teach: dismissing the first application after a predetermined threshold of time of being stacked behind the second application, wherein the first application can be resumed by unstacking the second application within the predetermined threshold of time; and
after dismissal of the first application, making the first application accessible from a recent applications list in a position indicating that it was a most recently opened application.
Parker teaches in general concepts related to a user friendly display interface system that simplifying the display by removal of inactive windows(Parker: Abstract). Specifically, after a period of time of inactivity, the window is completely faded out, but before the time out occurs, the user is able to restore the window to a full active and visible state (Parker: Fig. 3, step. 76).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the Frederickson-Zhu-Karstens disclosures and teachings by including computer instructions to allow for the complete dismissal of the inactive application (stacked application) after a time period, but allowing for the reactivation in the interim as taught and suggested by Parker. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the user to allow
As to Claim 18, Frederickson, Zhu, Karstens and Parker teach the limitations of claim 17.
Frederickson, Zhu, Karstens and Parker as combined further teaches: moving a third application to the first display stacked over the second application (Examiner notes that nothing suggests that the third application may be different from the first, which would be a re-focus operation to restack the first application over the second application, thus switching); and
making the second application accessible from the recent applications list (Frederickson: Fig. 6, par. 0031, the [194] menu is a list of recent applications and may be displayed on the first or second display, which includes the second application)..
As to Claim 19, Frederickson, Zhu, Karstens and Parker teach the limitations of claim 17.
Frederickson, Zhu, Karstens and Parker as combined further teaches: dismissing the first application (Frederickson: par. 0033, the user may close the application).
As to Claim 20, Frederickson, Zhu, Karstens and Parker teach the limitations of claim 17.
Frederickson, Zhu,Karstens and Parker as combined further teaches: unstacking the second application to resume the first application (Frederickson: par. 00451, displaying and undisplaying depending on which one has the focus and is active).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Eastern.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/JAMES T TSAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights