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
The Amendment filed 9/4/2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claim 6 has been added. Claims 1 and 3-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome the objection and rejections under 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Papamarcos et al. (US patent Application Publication 2023/0305692), referred to as Papamarcos herein [previously cited].
Ording et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0096397), referred to as Ording herein [previously cited 6/9/2026].
Tkachenko (“Moving Window From One Virtual Desktop to Another in Windows 10”, https://web.archive.org/web/20220121015715/https://winaero.com/move-window-virtual-desktop-windows-10/), referred to as Tkachenko herein.
Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0164966), referred to as Kim herein.
Fukase (US Patent Application Publication 2005/0060653), referred to as Fukase herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Papamarcos in view of Ording in further view of Tkachenko.
Regarding claim 1, Papamarcos discloses an information processing apparatus that controls display in a plurality of screen areas that do not overlap with each other, the apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store a program of an application; and a processor configured to control displaying a window of the application in at least one of the plurality of screen areas by executing the program of the application stored in the memory, wherein the processor is configured to perform (Papamarcos, Fig. 1 with ¶0024 – application windows. Fig. 5A-5B with ¶0041, ¶0046 – layouts of snap zones. Snap zones are shown in tiled non-overlapping arrangements. As an example, a snap zone may fill half, and the other snap zone may fill the other half. ¶0084 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
when a drag operation is accepted for the window displayed in at least one of the plurality of screen areas, a first display process of displaying icons corresponding to the plurality of screen areas in a screen area in which the drag operation is started, wherein the plurality of screen areas comprises a first screen area and a second screen area (Papamarcos, Figs. 2-3 and 5-6 with ¶0028-¶0050 ¶0079-¶0080 – dragging windows to different invocation regions associated with different display causes a presentation of display layout menu. The zones within the layout menu can be selected as a display area corresponding to the selected display, for arranging the window being dragged. The layout menu is shown in the screen area in which the dragging operation started),
in response to starting the drag operation on the first screen area,
third icon from which a display area is selectable, in which the window is to be displayed within the screen area selected by the first selection process, a second selection process of selecting a display area selected by the drag operation on the third icon as a display area for displaying the window being dragged (Papamarcos, Figs. 2-3 and 5-6 with ¶0028-¶0050 ¶0079-¶0080 – dragging windows to invocation regions causes a presentation of display layout menu. The zones within the layout menu can be selected as a display area corresponding to the selected display, for arranging the window being dragged), and
a third display process of changing a display position of the window to the display area selected by the second selection process within the screen area selected by the first selection process in response to completion of the drag operation on the window (Papamarcos, Figs. 7-8 with ¶0056-¶0057 – the window is displayed in the selected region upon completion of the drag process).
However, Papamarcos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ording discloses virtual management of workspaces, including dragging windows to new locations (Ording, Abstract and ¶0050), including
a first selection process of selecting a screen area corresponding to an icon selected by the drag operation from among the icons corresponding to the plurality of screen areas as a screen area for displaying the window being dragged (Ording, Fig. 2C with ¶0049-¶0050 – the user can drag an application window to an icon representing another virtual desktop to select to move the window to the virtual desktop area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of the layout of Papamarcos to include first selecting a virtual desktop based on the teachings of Ording. The motivation for doing so would have been to assist users with managing a large number of application windows in a multi-workspace environment (Ording, ¶0004-¶0005).
However, Papamarcos as modified appears not to expressly disclose in response to starting the operation on the first screen area, making a first icon corresponding to the first screen area a first color and making a second icon corresponding to the second screen area a second color different from the first color, in response to starting the operation on the second screen area, making the second icon corresponding to the second screen area the first color and making the first icon corresponding to the first screen area the second color.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tkachenko discloses a virtual desktop manager for moving windows between desktops (Tkachenko, Pages 1-2), including
in response to starting the operation on the first screen area, making a first icon corresponding to the first screen area a first color and making a second icon corresponding to the second screen area a second color different from the first color, in response to starting the operation on the second screen area, making the second icon corresponding to the second screen area the first color and making the first icon corresponding to the first screen area the second color (Tkachenko, Pages 1-2, 4-6 - the virtual desktop that the window is currently on is highlighted in a brighter color. In the images, the background is shown in a different shade of blue and surrounded with a white border. When a different window is selected, the previous window’s desktop is dimmed and the new window’s desktop is brightened).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the virtual desktop menu of Papamarcos as modified to include a color indication of the window’s current desktop based on the teachings of Tkachenko. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively orient users within the virtual desktop environment by intuitively indicating the current desktop.
Regarding claim 5, Papamarcos discloses a control method in an information processing apparatus including a memory configured to store a program of an application, and a processor configured to control displaying a window of the application in at least one of a plurality of screen areas that do not overlap with each other by executing the program of the application stored in the memory, the method comprising: via the processor (Papamarcos, Fig. 1 with ¶0024 – application windows. Fig. 5A with ¶0041, ¶0046 – layouts of snap zones. Snap zones are shown in tiled non-overlapping arrangements. As an example, a snap zone may fill half, and the other snap zone may fill the other half. ¶0084 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory),
when a drag operation is accepted for the window displayed in at least one of the plurality of screen areas, a first display step of displaying icons corresponding to the plurality of screen areas in a screen area in which the drag operation is started, wherein the plurality of screen areas comprises a first screen area and a second screen area (Papamarcos, Figs. 2-3 and 5-6 with ¶0028-¶0050 ¶0079-¶0080 – dragging windows to different invocation regions associated with different display causes a presentation of display layout menu. The zones within the layout menu can be selected as a display area corresponding to the selected display, for arranging the window being dragged. The layout menu is shown in the screen area in which the dragging operation started);
in response to starting the drag operation on the first screen area,
a third display step of changing a display position of the window to the display area selected by the second selection step within the screen area selected by the first selection step in response to completion of the drag operation on the window (Papamarcos, Figs. 7-8 with ¶0056-¶0057 – the window is displayed in the selected region upon completion of the drag process).
However, Papamarcos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ording discloses virtual management of workspaces, including dragging windows to new locations (Ording, Abstract and ¶0050), including
a first selection process of selecting a screen area corresponding to an icon selected by the drag operation from among the icons corresponding to the plurality of screen areas as a screen area for displaying the window being dragged (Ording, Fig. 2C with ¶0049-¶0050 – the user can drag an application window to an icon representing another virtual desktop to select to move the window to the virtual desktop area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of the layout of Papamarcos to include first selecting a virtual desktop based on the teachings of Ording. The motivation for doing so would have been to assist users with managing a large number of application windows in a multi-workspace environment (Ording, ¶0004-¶0005).
However, Papamarcos as modified appears not to expressly disclose in response to starting the operation on the first screen area, making a first icon corresponding to the first screen area a first color and making a second icon corresponding to the second screen area a second color different from the first color, in response to starting the operation on the second screen area, making the second icon corresponding to the second screen area the first color and making the first icon corresponding to the first screen area the second color.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tkachenko discloses a virtual desktop manager for moving windows between desktops (Tkachenko, Page 1), including
in response to starting the operation on the first screen area, making a first icon corresponding to the first screen area a first color and making a second icon corresponding to the second screen area a second color different from the first color, in response to starting the operation on the second screen area, making the second icon corresponding to the second screen area the first color and making the first icon corresponding to the first screen area the second color (Tkachenko, Pages 1, 4-6 - the virtual desktop that the window is currently on is highlighted in a brighter color. In the images, the background is shown in a different shade of blue and surrounded with a white border. When a different window is selected, the previous window’s desktop is dimmed and the new window’s desktop is brightened).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the virtual desktop menu of Papamarcos as modified to include a color indication of the window’s current desktop based on the teachings of Tkachenko. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively orient users within the virtual desktop environment by intuitively indicating the current desktop.
Regarding claim 6, Papamarcos as modified discloses the elements of claim 3 above, and further discloses wherein changing a display of the first icon comprises decreasing brightness of the first icon, and changing a display of the second icon comprises decreasing brightness of the second icon (Ording, Fig. 2C with ¶0049-¶0050 – the user can drag an application window to an icon representing another virtual desktop to select to move the window to the virtual desktop area. Tkachenko, Pagse 1- the virtual desktop that the window is currently on is highlighted in a brighter color. In the images, the background is shown in a different shade of blue and surrounded with a white border. When a different window is selected, the previous window’s desktop is dimmed and the new window’s desktop is brightened).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Papamarcos in further view of Fukase.
Regarding claim 3, Papamarcos as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Papamarcos as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein in response to selection of the first icon by the drag operation, changing a display of the first icon, and in response to selection of the second icon by the drag operation, changing display of the second icon.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fukase disclosing dragging and dropping icons onto destination icons for movement (Fukase, Abstract with ¶0058), including
wherein in response to selection of the first icon by the drag operation, changing a display of the first icon, and in response to selection of the second icon by the drag operation, changing display of the second icon (Fukase, Figs. 4-5, 12 with ¶0130-¶0136, ¶0196-¶0198 – highlighting display of the hovered drop target icon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drop zone icons of Papamarcos as modified to include a highlighting based on the teachings of Fukase. The motivation for doing so would have been to help the user distinguish between targets when performing the selection (Fukase, ¶0129-¶0131).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Papamarcos in further view of Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Papamarcos as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first screen area is a screen area of an embedded display of the information processing apparatus and the second screen area is a screen area of an external display connected to the information processing apparatus, and the processor is configured to, in the first display process, display an icon corresponding to the first screen area and an icon corresponding to the second screen area
However, Papamarcos as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses managing application execution spaces, including desktop environments (Kim, Abstract with Fig. 2A and ¶0109), including
display an icon corresponding to the first screen area and an icon corresponding to the second screen area in different types of the respective displays (Kim, Figs. 34A-34C, 43D with ¶0256 – application execution space can correspond to an external display such as a TV or a display of the device itself. The icons in the execution space menu indicate the type of the connected display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the desktop selection menu of Papamarcos as modified to include different icon types for each display type based on the teachings of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to more efficiently, quickly, and intuitively identify displays.
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 DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain 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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights