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 .
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: Window Position Change via Drag Operation Information Processing Apparatus and Control Method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 and 4 are 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 3 recites “make display modes different from each other when the first icon is selected by the drag operation and when the first icon is not selected by the drag operation, and when the second icon is selected by the drag operation and when the second icon is not selected by the drag operation”. It is unclear whether this limitation is directed to the selection resulting in the display modes for a given icon being different, or that the display modes remain different between icons regardless of selection. As a result of this ambiguity, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Mapping for both interpretations is provided below.
Claim 3 recites “make display modes”. However, “display modes” were previously introduced. It is unclear whether this limitation is directed to second display modes or should be referencing the previously introduced display modes. As a result of this antecedent ambiguity, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “imitating types of the respective displays”. Applicant’s specification does not appear to recite a definition for “imitating”. Further, the term “imitating” does not appear to be a specific term of art. As a result, it appears to be a matter of opinion whether one icon design “imitates” a display. Persons having ordinary skill in the art may have had very different opinions about whether an icon is sufficiently similar to be considered “imitating”. As a result, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Singh et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0342042), referred to as Singh herein.
Papamarcos et al. (US patent Application Publication 2023/0305692), referred to as Papamarcos herein.
Beharie et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0083655), referred to as Beharie herein.
GeChic (“Mac OS Display Settings”, https://web.archive.org/web/20240225015627/https://www.gechic.com/en/knowledge-base-2/mac-os-displays-settings/), referred to as GeChic 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, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Papamarcos.
Regarding claim 1, Singh 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 (Singh, Figs. 8-9 and 13 with ¶0105-¶0113 – controlling non-overlapping virtual desktops shown in monitors. with Fig. 2 with ¶0055-¶0063 – 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, and making display modes of a first icon corresponding to the screen area in which the drag operation is started among the icons corresponding to the plurality of screen areas and a second icon other than the first icon different from each other (Singh, Fig. 11 with ¶0110-¶0113 – monitor icons are shown on the desktop in response to a drag operation. The monitors represent other virtual desktops. The icons are different from each other in location and indication of the corresponding monitor. ¶0097-¶0099 – the object may be a window),
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 (Singh, Fig. 12 with ¶0113-¶0115 – dropping the object on the monitor icon results in transfer of the object to the corresponding virtual desktop),
However, Singh appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Papamarcos discloses a window arrangement interface (Papamarcos, Abstract), including
a second display process of newly displaying a 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 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).
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 a region of Singh to include displaying a layout menu based on the teachings of Papamarcos. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to further customize display position while actively rearranging application windows (Papamarcos, ¶0004), providing a more efficient and streamlined customization in a multi-monitor environment (Papamarcos, ¶0003).
Regarding claim 3, Singh as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein in the first display process, the processor is configured to make display modes different from each other when the first icon is selected by the drag operation and when the first icon is not selected by the drag operation, and when the second icon is selected by the drag operation and when the second icon is not selected by the drag operation (Singh, Fig. 11 with ¶0110-¶0113 – monitor icons are shown on the desktop in response to a drag operation. The monitors represent other virtual desktops. The icons are different from each other in location and indication of the corresponding monitor regardless of selection. For example, the display mode of monitor 2 is different from the display mode of monitor 3 in that monitor 2 is indicated as corresponding to a different monitor independently of whether it is selected. Papamarcos, ¶0048-¶0049 – monitor characteristics are used to determine the layout menu. For example, the number of zones or orientation of zones can be displayed as different depending on the size, aspect ratio, resolution, or portrait/landscape orientation of the monitor).
Regarding claim 5, Singh 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 (Singh, Figs. 8-9 and 13 with ¶0105-¶0113 – controlling non-overlapping virtual desktops shown in monitors. with Fig. 2 with ¶0055-¶0063 – 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, and making display modes of a first icon corresponding to the screen area in which the drag operation is started among the icons corresponding to the plurality of screen areas and a second icon other than the first icon different from each other (Singh, Fig. 11 with ¶0110-¶0113 – monitor icons are shown on the desktop in response to a drag operation. The monitors represent other virtual desktops. The icons are different from each other in location and indication of the corresponding monitor. ¶0097-¶0099 – the object may be a window);
a first selection step 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 (Singh, Fig. 12 with ¶0113-¶0115 – dropping the object on the monitor icon results in transfer of the object to the corresponding virtual desktop);
However, Singh appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Papamarcos discloses a window arrangement interface (Papamarcos, Abstract), including
a second display process of newly displaying a 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 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).
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 a region of Singh to include displaying a layout menu based on the teachings of Papamarcos. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to further customize display position while actively rearranging application windows (Papamarcos, ¶0004), providing a more efficient and streamlined customization in a multi-monitor environment (Papamarcos, ¶0003).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Papamarcos in further view of Beharie.
Regarding claim 2, Singh as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Singh appears not to expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to make colors of the first icon and the second icon different from each other in the first display process.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Beharie discloses moving applications between virtual desktops (Beharie, Abstract), including
wherein the processor is configured to make colors of the first icon and the second icon different from each other in the first display process (Beharie, Figs. 1 and 6 with ¶0033-¶0034 – virtual desktops are represented by colors. The colors are used in the sidebar menu for selecting the desktop).
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 Singh as modified to include different colors for each desktop based on the teachings of Beharie. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to more efficiently, quickly, and intuitively identify and manage desktops (Beharie, ¶0053) by enabling the user to more easily identify desktops from one another, especially in case where there are many.
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 GeChic.
Regarding claim 4, Singh as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of screen areas include a screen area of an embedded display of the information processing apparatus and 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 screen area of the embedded display and an icon corresponding to the screen area of the external display
However, Singh as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, GeChic disclose an extended display menu (GeChic, Pages 1-7), including
display an icon corresponding to the screen area of the embedded display and an icon corresponding to the screen area of the external display in different designs imitating types of the respective displays (GeChic, Pages 3, 5-7 – internal laptop display-shaped icon is used for the built-in display, while external monitor-shaped icons are used for external displays. A portrait-oriented icon is used for a portrait oriented 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 Singh as modified to include different icon types for each display type based on the teachings of GeChic. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to more efficiently, quickly, and intuitively identify displays.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References are at least relevant as indicated in the corresponding summary.
Chen et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0020475) – window layout menu including highlighting of selected layout arrangements.
Beaumont (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0113719) – color-coded virtual desktops.
Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0263642) – device-specific window shape for dragging applications between device desktops.
Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0351531) – device-specific window shape for dragging applications between device desktops.
Goldberg et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0016037) – device-specific window shape for dragging applications between device desktops.
Green (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0151981) – dragging applications between desktops of a device via a second device, the first device has device-specific window shapes.
Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0020013) - device-specific window shape for dragging applications between device desktops.
Song et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0038541) - device-specific window shape for dragging applications between device desktops.
Shirai et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0112819) - device-specific window shape for dragging applications between device desktops.
Fard et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0034317) – virtual desktop manager including dragging appli8cations windows from one desktop to another.
Ording et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0096397) – virtual desktop manager including dragging application windows from one desktop to another.
Starr et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0081615) – window arrangement popup menu.
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