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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 8/11/2026. Claims 1-15 remain pending.
The previous rejections of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al., USPAT 2010/0293508 A1 in view of An et al., USPAT 2015/0185980 A1 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al., USPAT 2010/0293508 A1 in view of An et al., USPAT 2015/0185980 A1 and Ranjan, USPAT 11861095 B2.
Per independent claim 1, Hwang et al. teaches: an electronic device comprising a display, a processor and memory (FIG.1) storing instructions to, (see FIG.3, for example showing the screen divided into the four sections), display a menu item comprising a first object for lock setting, in response to receiving a first user input on one side of the divided screen(Para [0047] and[0048], for example, in [0048], “When the long touch even in the empty position… does not automatically set the position movement locking”); and when receiving a second user input for the first object, lock the at least one window and display the at least one window that is locked ([0049], “If .. user selections a position locking function via the pop-up window… set... locking”) .
Hwang et al. does not explicitly disclose that while displaying a divided screen comprising a plurality of windows on the display identify at least one window in which multimedia content is executed and the locking is performed in that window. Nevertheless, Hwang et al. teaches the ability to set the locking functions in any or all windows in the display screen ([0047] and see FIG.4). With the missing feature, An et al. teaches the graphical user interface environment with the divided screen and a plurality of windows including a windows playing multimedia content (See FIGs 3A-3D). Given that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated the teaching of An et al. into Hwang et al.’s invention to allow a multimedia playing window to be locked, since the Hwang et al., explicitly teaches that the application on screen can by multimedia playing programs ([0005], “file playback… MP3 Player… image collecting…”).
Per the newly amended limitation, Hwang et al. in view An et al. does not disclose that the objects being locked by the first and the second user input is a window in a plurality of windows. The missing feature is taught by the prior art of Ranjan. Ranjan teaches a touchscreen locking technology for playback of multimedia content. In the prior art, Ranjan teaches the multimedia being played in a window (see FIG.4). Ranjan then teaches that the first user input to the media playback window is provided to display the lock icon (col.7, lines 21+, “the media player controls … displayed … for a few seconds when the user touches the touchscreen …[that] triggers the display of an interactive lock element”). Ranjan then teaches using the second user input to initiate the lock feature (col.8, lines 33+, “the ‘active lock’ trigger event corresponds to some type of user interaction …including .. selecting the interactive lock element 406…”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have extended the multi-object locking features in a divided screen environment as taught by Hwang et al. and An et al. to lock the multimedia being played in a window as taught by Ranjan, since Ranjan taught the need to lock the media playing windows as the accidental touches can be disruptive to the play (col.1, lines34-45, “if accidentally touched …playback .. can be inadvertently stopped…”), and Hwang et al. and An et al. combined to provide a divided screen touchscreen environment that would have benefitted the controlled playback locking as taught by Ranjan.
Per dependent claim 2, Hwange et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: identify that a first window among the at least one window is in an activation state; and lock set the first window in response to identifying a selection of the first object based on the second user input ([0053] the lock can be applied to all windows on the screen or selective windows); and identify at least one window in which multimedia content is executed (see FIG.4 of Ranjan as explained with respect to claim 1 above).
Per claim 3, Hwang et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: identify that a second window, which is different from the first window, among the at least one window, is converted to the activation state [0053] but does not explicitly disclose that when receiving the first user input on at least one side of the divided screen, display the menu item comprising the first object; and lock set the second window in response to identifying the selection of the first object. Nevertheless, the feature is explicitly taught, since Hwang et al. teaches initiating the lock process by long pressing a touch in the empty position on screen [0048], and both Hwang et al and An et al taught that their screens are divided. Thus, the empty position would be at “one side” of the divided screen.
Per claim 4, Hwang et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: identify a direction of the second user input received with respect to the first object; and lock a window corresponding to the direction of the second user input among the at least one window ([0053], “the user can generate … a long touch event with respect to the schedule icon” shows at least the vertical direction to the icon itself for the touch.).
Per claim 5, Hwang et al teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
when identifying two or more windows in which multimedia content is executed
10 among the plurality of windows, display a second object for simultaneous lock setting
within the menu item, in response to the first user input detected on at least one side of
the divided screen; and when receiving a third user input for the second object, lock all the two or more
windows ([0047] and FIG.4)
Per claim 6, Hwang et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to display the menu item, as explained with respect to claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach the displaying menu occurs when receiving the first user input in at least one of a boundary region between the plurality of windows or a display region of each of the at least one window. Regarding the missing limitation, An et al. teaches the boundary region (e.g., FIG. 2A-2D) and Hwang et al. also teaches the boundary region in FIG. 3 (see the cross division). Given that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have envisaged applying Hwang et al.’s touch input to open the lock process menu by touch the boundary regions, since Hwang et al. explicitly taught that the touch input has to occur at the empty area (i.e., area without the content being displayed) on screen ([0048] “… the long touch event in empty position”), and the boundary regions of Hwang et al and An et al. represented the significant empty regions.
Per claim 7, Hwang et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to display an icon indicating a locked state on one side of the at least one window that is locked, or display a border of a specified thickness in a circumferential region of the at least one window that is locked (FIG.4, item 11 on 203 Screen)
Per claim 8, Hwang et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: display an indicator indicating an activation state or deactivation state of each window on each of the plurality of windows(FIG.4, item 11 on 203 Screen shows each window locked state);
and apply at least one of a color, pattern, or effect corresponding to a locked state, to another indicator comprised in the at least one window that is locked, and display the locked state (FIG4, item 11 in Screen 201 shows another indication effect).
Per claim 9, Hwang et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to: when receiving the first user input on at least one side of the divided screen while the at least one window is lock set, display the menu item comprising the first object; and in response to identifying a selection of the first object, unlock the at least one window ([0048]-[0053] shows individual locking and unlocking (i.e., “lock release” processing means).
Claims 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 are for method performed by the apparatus of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is for method performed by the apparatus of claims 2 and 3, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20190012054-A1 2019-01-10 Shiplacoff; Daniel Marc Gatan G06F3/04842 1/1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-6PM. 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, a supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights