Detailed Action
1. This office action is in response to communication filed July 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1, 13, and 18 are the independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claims 19-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 14-15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
It is believed by the Examiner that the Applicant does not purposely mean to have claims 19-20 depending on independent claim 13 and rather should depend on independent claim 18 as they recite nearly identical claim limitations as already seen in claims 14-15 which depend on independent claim 13. The Examiner requests review of claims 19-20 with amendment expected in the next submission by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, the claim recites “An inter-application information sharing method applied to a terminal, the method comprising: displaying, by the terminal, a first interface of a first application, the first interface comprising a first interface element; detecting, by the terminal, a first operation performed on the first interface element; displaying, by the terminal, a first window in response to detecting the first operation, the first window displaying a fourth interface of a third application, the fourth interface prompts that the third application is enabled, and the first interface element of the first application is stored in the third application; detecting, by the terminal, a second operation, the second operation being used to enable a second application or to switch to a second interface of the second application; displaying, by the terminal, the second interface of the second application in response to detecting the second operation, and further displaying the first window, the first window displaying a fifth interface of the third application, the fifth interface of the third application comprising a second interface element, and the second interface element comprises at least a part of a first interface element content of the first interface element; receiving, by the terminal, a third operation performed by a user on the second interface element in the first window; and displaying, by the terminal, a third interface of the second application in response to receiving the third operation, the third interface comprising a third interface element, the third interface element is used to present a second interface element content of the second interface element, and the third interface element is the same or different from the second interface element.”
The limitation “detecting, by the terminal, a first operation performed on the first interface element” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person may make the observation of an operation performed on an interface element mentally based on observing use of a terminal/device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation “detecting, by the terminal, a second operation, the second operation being used to enable a second application or to switch to a second interface of the second application” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person may make the observation of an operation performed on an interface element mentally based on observing use of a terminal/device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular under Prong II step 2A, claim 1 recites the additional elements “displaying, by the terminal, a first interface of a first application, the first interface comprising a first interface element; displaying, by the terminal, a first window in response to detecting the first operation, the first window displaying a fourth interface of a third application, the fourth interface prompts that the third application is enabled, and the first interface element of the first application is stored in the third application; displaying, by the terminal, the second interface of the second application in response to detecting the second operation, and further displaying the first window, the first window displaying a fifth interface of the third application, the fifth interface of the third application comprising a second interface element, and the second interface element comprises at least a part of a first interface element content of the first interface element; receiving, by the terminal, a third operation performed by a user on the second interface element in the first window; and displaying, by the terminal, a third interface of the second application in response to receiving the third operation, the third interface comprising a third interface element, the third interface element is used to present a second interface element content of the second interface element, and the third interface element is the same or different from the second interface element.” The additional elements “displaying, by the terminal, a first interface of a first application, the first interface comprising a first interface element”, “displaying, by the terminal, a first window in response to detecting the first operation, the first window displaying a fourth interface of a third application, the fourth interface prompts that the third application is enabled, and the first interface element of the first application is stored in the third application”, “displaying, by the terminal, the second interface of the second application in response to detecting the second operation, and further displaying the first window, the first window displaying a fifth interface of the third application, the fifth interface of the third application comprising a second interface element, and the second interface element comprises at least a part of a first interface element content of the first interface element”, and “displaying, by the terminal, a third interface of the second application in response to receiving the third operation, the third interface comprising a third interface element, the third interface element is used to present a second interface element content of the second interface element, and the third interface element is the same or different from the second interface element” represent the “apply it” step which is a mere instruction to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that the displaying of interfaces is no more than an idea of a solution or outcome to the detection of an input by a user. The additional element “receiving, by the terminal, a third operation performed by a user on the second interface element in the first window” represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory ((see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element “receiving, by the terminal, a third operation performed by a user on the second interface element in the first window” represents the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory ((see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of receiving inputs and displaying interfaces in response to those inputs and applying the exception to display an interface based on the specific user input, as discussed above, does not amount to significantly more as they are claimed in a merely generic manner, and is thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein before the first window displays the fifth interface of the third application, the method further comprises: detecting, by the terminal, a fourth operation performed by the user on the first window, the fourth operation being used to display an interface element in the third application”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the detection of an operation by a user leading to displaying an interface of an application which is similarly a mental process as explained above as it is an observation by a human, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein the method further comprises: receiving a fifth operation performed by the user on the second interface element in the first window, the fifth operation being different from the third operation; and displaying, by the terminal, a sixth interface of the third application in response to receiving the fifth operation of the user, the sixth interface being used to edit the second interface element in the third application”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to additional elements of “receiving …” and “displaying …”, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein the method further comprises: receiving a sixth operation performed by the user on the first window, the sixth operation being used to exit the third application; and skipping displaying, by the terminal, the first window in response to receiving the sixth operation”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to an additional operation received from a user leading to a different outcome of skipping the displaying of a window, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein: when the second interface of the second application supports insertion of an interface element of a type corresponding to the second interface element, the third interface element is the same as the second interface element; or when the second interface of the second application does not support insertion of the interface element of the type corresponding to the second interface element, the third interface element is an interface element obtained after the third application or the second application performs conversion based on the second interface element”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the type of interface elements available based on if the application supports insertion of interface element(s), which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein: the first interface element comprises a text control; and the second interface element comprises a text control, wherein the second interface element comprises a part of text in the first interface element, and composition of text in the second interface element is different from composition of the text in the first interface element”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the text control element within the different interface elements, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of dependent claim 6 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein a composition of text in the third interface element is different from the composition of the text in the second interface element”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to text in the interface elements differing, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 6, above.
As per claim 8, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein the first interface element comprises a text control and a picture control, and the second interface element comprises a text control and a picture control”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the interface elements comprising text control and/or picture control, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 8 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 9, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein the first interface element comprises a video control and the second interface element comprises a video control, wherein a state of a video in the second interface element is the same as a state of a video in the first interface element, and the state of the video comprises at least one of a playback state, a non-playback state, or a playback progress”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the interface element comprising a video control and the conditions of that video control, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 9 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 10, it incorporates the deficiencies of dependent claim 9 upon which it depends, and further recites “wherein: when the second interface of the second application supports insertion of an interface element of a video type, the third interface element comprises a video control; or when the second interface of the second application does not support insertion of the interface element of the video type, the third interface element comprises a video link or at least one picture control”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the type of interface elements available based on if the application supports insertion of interface element(s), which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 10 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 9 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 9, above.
As per claim 11, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the first interface element comprises a card and/or a mini program, the second interface element comprises a card and/or a mini program, and data of the card and/or the mini program in the first interface element is the same as data of the card and/or the mini program in the second interface element”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the data and program type being the same between the first and second interface elements, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 11 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 12, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the displaying, by the terminal, the first window in response to detecting the first operation comprises: enabling, by the terminal, the third application in response to detecting the first operation; sending, by the first application, information about the first interface element to the third application; and generating, by the third application, the second interface element based on the information about the first interface element; wherein the information about the first interface element comprises one or more of a type of the first interface element, a location of the first interface element in the first interface, content of the first interface element, or a state of the first interface element, wherein the state of the first interface element comprising a selected state and an unselected state”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the operations following the detection of a first user operation which leads to generation of an interface element based on the first interface element’s information, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 12 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the same claimed language as claims 1-4 and 6 above other than being a terminal (device) claim rather than an inter-application information sharing method claim. Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claims 1-4 and 6 above.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the same claimed language as claims 1-3 above other than being a non-transitory computer-readable storage media claim rather than an inter-application information sharing method claim. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claims 1-3 above.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunning et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0278431) – hereinafter “Dunning” in view of Li et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0371535) – hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding independent claim 1, Dunning discloses:
An inter-application information sharing method applied to a terminal, the method comprising: ([0058] “The PiP GUI mode is thus entered into by the control software in an automated process without the user needing to manually reconfigure any of the windows. The PiP GUI mode aids a user in performing repetitive tasks involving the source and destination applications (such as copy-and-pasting between the applications).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the copy-pasting between applications involves inter-application information sharing.
displaying, by the terminal, a first interface of a first application, the first interface comprising a first interface element; (Fig. 3 and [0033] “FIG. 3 is a schematic representation of a first screen shot of a display 24 on which first and second windows (Window A, Window B) relating to first and second applications are displayed side-by-side in a conventional split-screen arrangement. The first application is, by way of example, a word processor, which is associated with the left-hand window with the header label “Document1”.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the first window includes a word processing application being displayed.
detecting, by the terminal, a first operation performed on the first interface element; (Fig. 6 and [0038] “In Step S2, the app log is analyzed in the background by the control software to identify patterns in the user's behavior. One specific pattern of interest is a user repeatedly switching between any given pair of applications.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the operation of switching back and forth between applications is performed on the first application’s interface element.
detecting, by the terminal, a second operation, the second operation being used to enable a second application or to switch to a second interface of the second application; (Fig. 6 and [0038] “In Step S2, the app log is analyzed in the background by the control software to identify patterns in the user's behavior. One specific pattern of interest is a user repeatedly switching between any given pair of applications.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the operation of switching back and forth between applications is performed to switch to a second interface of the second application such as Application A 501A in Fig. 5B.
Dunning does not explicitly disclose:
displaying, by the terminal, a first window in response to detecting the first operation, the first window displaying a fourth interface of a third application, the fourth interface prompts that the third application is enabled, and the first interface element of the first application is stored in the third application;
displaying, by the terminal, the second interface of the second application in response to detecting the second operation, and further displaying the first window, the first window displaying a fifth interface of the third application, the fifth interface of the third application comprising a second interface element, and the second interface element comprises at least a part of a first interface element content of the first interface element;
receiving, by the terminal, a third operation performed by a user on the second interface element in the first window; and
displaying, by the terminal, a third interface of the second application in response to receiving the third operation, the third interface comprising a third interface element, the third interface element is used to present a second interface element content of the second interface element, and the third interface element is the same or different from the second interface element.
However, Li discloses:
displaying, by the terminal, a first window in response to detecting the first operation, the first window displaying a fourth interface of a third application, the fourth interface prompts that the third application is enabled, and the first interface element of the first application is stored in the third application; (Figs. 5A-5G and Abstract “As triggered by a user gesture, application interface elements that belong to applications of a same type are made movable. The movable application interface elements are automatically gathered into a same folder on a user interface. This helps a user gather application interface elements on a graphic user interface by performing a few operations, reduces manual operations of the user, saves electric power, and enhances user experience.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface element of the application is moved into the grouping of interface elements for applications.
displaying, by the terminal, the second interface of the second application in response to detecting the second operation, and further displaying the first window, the first window displaying a fifth interface of the third application, the fifth interface of the third application comprising a second interface element, and the second interface element comprises at least a part of a first interface element content of the first interface element; (Figs. 5A-5G and Abstract “As triggered by a user gesture, application interface elements that belong to applications of a same type are made movable. The movable application interface elements are automatically gathered into a same folder on a user interface. This helps a user gather application interface elements on a graphic user interface by performing a few operations, reduces manual operations of the user, saves electric power, and enhances user experience.” and [0215] “In some embodiments, the device may respond to a personalized management requirement of the user. For example, the device interface shifts to FIG. 5C, that is, the device provides a personalized selection opportunity, and waits for the user to deselect (de-select) the application icon 501D, before the automatic movement of the application icons 501A-501D, by using a gesture 505-3 and then triggers an automatic movement of the icon. Then when the device responds to the user gesture and triggers application icons of a same type to be automatically gathered into the folder 507, the icon 501D is not moved into the folder 507.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface element of the application is moved into the grouping of interface elements for applications such as Application B 501B in Fig. 5B with Application A 501A already in the grouping based on a specific gesture performed by the user.
receiving, by the terminal, a third operation performed by a user on the second interface element in the first window; and (Figs. 5A-5G and [0214] “In some embodiments, the device 100 may trigger the following events after waiting for the user to further provide another gesture 505-2: displaying a new folder 507 on the device interface, and automatically moving the application icons 501A-501D into the folder 507. As mentioned above, the form of the gesture 505-2 is flexible, for example, tapping, and flicking; and the location or area in which the gesture 505-2 is actuated on the touch-sensitive surface is also flexible, for example, the location may be the same as or different from a location in which the gesture 505 is actuated on the touch-sensitive surface; and the event occurrence order is also flexible.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user’s gesture on the terminal causes the window to be updated with different user application interface element movements/changes.
displaying, by the terminal, a third interface of the second application in response to receiving the third operation, the third interface comprising a third interface element, the third interface element is used to present a second interface element content of the second interface element, and the third interface element is the same or different from the second interface element. (Figs. 5A-5G and Abstract “As triggered by a user gesture, application interface elements that belong to applications of a same type are made movable. The movable application interface elements are automatically gathered into a same folder on a user interface. This helps a user gather application interface elements on a graphic user interface by performing a few operations, reduces manual operations of the user, saves electric power, and enhances user experience.” and [0215] “For another example, the device interface shifts to FIG. 5D, that is, the device provides a personalized selection opportunity, and waits for the user to select the application icon 503 (for example, an application icon of a different type than the application corresponding to the icon 501A), before the automatic movement of the application icons 501A-501D, by using a gesture 505-3 and then triggers an automatic movement of the icon. Then when the device responds to the user gesture and triggers application icons of a same type to be automatically gathered into the folder 507, the icon 503 is also moved into the folder 507 (FIG. 5E).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface element of the application is moved into the grouping of interface elements for applications such as Application C 501C in Fig. 5C with Applications A+B (501A + 501B) already in the grouping based on a specific gesture performed by the user.
Both Dunning and Li are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the art of application interface displaying and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add multiple display options for multiple application interfaces based on the detection of different user operations as seen in Li's invention into Dunning's invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that the picture in picture view is substituted for another application holding information on applications to similarly be copy-and-pasted across various applications to improve a user’s efficiency in writing document applications, for example.
Regarding claim 2, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
detecting, by the terminal, a fourth operation performed by the user on the first window, the fourth operation being used to display an interface element in the third application.
However, Li discloses:
wherein before the first window displays the fifth interface of the third application, the method further comprises:
detecting, by the terminal, a fourth operation performed by the user on the first window, the fourth operation being used to display an interface element in the third application. (Figs. 5A-5G and Abstract “As triggered by a user gesture, application interface elements that belong to applications of a same type are made movable. The movable application interface elements are automatically gathered into a same folder on a user interface. This helps a user gather application interface elements on a graphic user interface by performing a few operations, reduces manual operations of the user, saves electric power, and enhances user experience.” and [0215] “In some embodiments, the device may respond to a personalized management requirement of the user. For example, the device interface shifts to FIG. 5C, that is, the device provides a personalized selection opportunity, and waits for the user to deselect (de-select) the application icon 501D, before the automatic movement of the application icons 501A-501D, by using a gesture 505-3 and then triggers an automatic movement of the icon. Then when the device responds to the user gesture and triggers application icons of a same type to be automatically gathered into the folder 507, the icon 501D is not moved into the folder 507.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface element of the application is moved into the grouping of interface elements for applications such as Application B 501B in Fig. 5B with Application A 501A already in the grouping based on a specific gesture performed by the user.
Both Dunning and Li are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the art of application interface displaying and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add detecting, by the terminal, a fourth operation performed by the user on the first window, the fourth operation being used to display an interface element in the third application as seen in Li's invention into Dunning's invention because these modifications allow the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way such that the picture in picture view across multiple applications can similarly be improved with copy-and-pasting interface elements across different applications to improve user efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a fifth operation performed by the user on the second interface element in the first window, the fifth operation being different from the third operation; and
displaying, by the terminal, a sixth interface of the third application in response to receiving the fifth operation of the user, the sixth interface being used to edit the second interface element in the third application.
However, Li discloses:
receiving a fifth operation performed by the user on the second interface element in the first window, the fifth operation being different from the third operation; and (Figs. 5A-5G and [0214] “In some embodiments, the device 100 may trigger the following events after waiting for the user to further provide another gesture 505-2: displaying a new folder 507 on the device interface, and automatically moving the application icons 501A-501D into the folder 507. As mentioned above, the form of the gesture 505-2 is flexible, for example, tapping, and flicking; and the location or area in which the gesture 505-2 is actuated on the touch-sensitive surface is also flexible, for example, the location may be the same as or different from a location in which the gesture 505 is actuated on the touch-sensitive surface; and the event occurrence order is also flexible.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user’s gesture on the terminal, for example a flick compared to a previous user tap, causes the window to be updated with different user application interface element movements/changes.
displaying, by the terminal, a sixth interface of the third application in response to receiving the fifth operation of the user, the sixth interface being used to edit the second interface element in the third application. (Figs. 5A-5G and Abstract “As triggered by a user gesture, application interface elements that belong to applications of a same type are made movable. The movable application interface elements are automatically gathered into a same folder on a user interface. This helps a user gather application interface elements on a graphic user interface by performing a few operations, reduces manual operations of the user, saves electric power, and enhances user experience.” and [0215] “For another example, the device interface shifts to FIG. 5D, that is, the device provides a personalized selection opportunity, and waits for the user to select the application icon 503 (for example, an application icon of a different type than the application corresponding to the icon 501A), before the automatic movement of the application icons 501A-501D, by using a gesture 505-3 and then triggers an automatic movement of the icon. Then when the device responds to the user gesture and triggers application icons of a same type to be automatically gathered into the folder 507, the icon 503 is also moved into the folder 507 (FIG. 5E).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface element of the applications are moved as the application’s interface is expanded to include additional icons.
Both Dunning and Li are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the art of application interface displaying and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add receiving a fifth operation performed by the user on the second interface element in the first window, the fifth operation being different from the third operation; and displaying, by the terminal, a sixth interface of the third application in response to receiving the fifth operation of the user, the sixth interface being used to edit the second interface element in the third application as seen in Li's invention into Dunning's invention because these modifications allow the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way such that the picture-in-picture view can be updated with new interface elements such as updating text or images based on a user’s interaction with the display window to include additional elements that the user may need to copy-and-paste across different applications.
Regarding claim 4, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a sixth operation performed by the user on the first window, the sixth operation being used to exit the third application; and (Fig. 6, S8 and [0044] “In Step S8, if the monitoring shows that no app switching has taken place for a certain period of time, then it can be inferred that the PiP GUI mode is no longer useful.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the app switching has ceased, so the user is performing different operations that lead to the exiting of PiP GUI mode.
skipping displaying, by the terminal, the first window in response to receiving the sixth operation. (Fig. 6, S9 and [0045] “In Step S9, the PiP GUI mode can then be exited. The exit can revert to the previous window display configuration (i.e. the configuration that existed prior to Step S3), such as a split-screen mode shown in FIG. 3.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the PiP GUI mode is exited such that the multi-application display is removed from the window.
Regarding claim 5, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein:
when the second interface of the second application supports insertion of an interface element of a type corresponding to the second interface element, the third interface element is the same as the second interface element; or (Fig. 4 showing both text and images and [0034] “The screen shot of FIG. 4 shows a transformation of the graphical user interface (GUI) triggered by the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions from the web browser to the word processor. It is the control software according to an embodiment of the disclosure that has detected the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions and in response thereto jumped to the GUI shown in FIG. 4. The web browser window is now presented as an overlay on top of the word processor window, with the presented part of the web page being that which the control software has sensed is the portion of the web page being of most interest to the user for copy-and-paste. This kind of overlay of one application window within another application window is termed a Picture-in-Picture (PiP) window.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the PiP GUI mode shows text and pictures overlayed over the text of a word processing application in which the text can be inserted from the web browser application to the word processing application.
when the second interface of the second application does not support insertion of the interface element of the type corresponding to the second interface element, the third interface element is an interface element obtained after the third application or the second application performs conversion based on the second interface element. (Fig. 4 showing both text and images and [0034] “The screen shot of FIG. 4 shows a transformation of the graphical user interface (GUI) triggered by the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions from the web browser to the word processor. It is the control software according to an embodiment of the disclosure that has detected the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions and in response thereto jumped to the GUI shown in FIG. 4. The web browser window is now presented as an overlay on top of the word processor window, with the presented part of the web page being that which the control software has sensed is the portion of the web page being of most interest to the user for copy-and-paste. This kind of overlay of one application window within another application window is termed a Picture-in-Picture (PiP) window.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the PiP GUI mode shows text and pictures overlayed over the text of a word processing application in which the picture can be copied even though it is not text like the word document application contains and the picture can be converted and pasted into the word document application even though it is a different resource type.
Regarding claim 6, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein:
the first interface element comprises a text control; and (Fig. 4 showing text in a word document application)
the second interface element comprises a text control, wherein the second interface element comprises a part of text in the first interface element, and composition of text in the second interface element is different from composition of the text in the first interface element. (Fig. 4 showing both text and images and [0034] “The screen shot of FIG. 4 shows a transformation of the graphical user interface (GUI) triggered by the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions from the web browser to the word processor. It is the control software according to an embodiment of the disclosure that has detected the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions and in response thereto jumped to the GUI shown in FIG. 4. The web browser window is now presented as an overlay on top of the word processor window, with the presented part of the web page being that which the control software has sensed is the portion of the web page being of most interest to the user for copy-and-paste. This kind of overlay of one application window within another application window is termed a Picture-in-Picture (PiP) window.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the PiP GUI mode shows text and pictures in a browser application overlayed over the text of a word processing application which are different texts that can be copied-and-pasted.
Regarding claim 7, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein a composition of text in the third interface element is different from the composition of the text in the second interface element. (Fig. 4 showing both text and images and [0034] “The screen shot of FIG. 4 shows a transformation of the graphical user interface (GUI) triggered by the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions from the web browser to the word processor. It is the control software according to an embodiment of the disclosure that has detected the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions and in response thereto jumped to the GUI shown in FIG. 4. The web browser window is now presented as an overlay on top of the word processor window, with the presented part of the web page being that which the control software has sensed is the portion of the web page being of most interest to the user for copy-and-paste. This kind of overlay of one application window within another application window is termed a Picture-in-Picture (PiP) window.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the PiP GUI mode shows text and pictures in a browser application overlayed over the text of a word processing application which are different texts that can be copied-and-pasted.
Regarding claim 8, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first interface element comprises a text control and a picture control, and the second interface element comprises a text control and a picture control. (Fig. 4 showing both text and images and [0034] “The screen shot of FIG. 4 shows a transformation of the graphical user interface (GUI) triggered by the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions from the web browser to the word processor. It is the control software according to an embodiment of the disclosure that has detected the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions and in response thereto jumped to the GUI shown in FIG. 4. The web browser window is now presented as an overlay on top of the word processor window, with the presented part of the web page being that which the control software has sensed is the portion of the web page being of most interest to the user for copy-and-paste. This kind of overlay of one application window within another application window is termed a Picture-in-Picture (PiP) window.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the PiP GUI mode shows text and pictures in a browser application overlayed over the text of a word processing application which also can contain pictures that are copied-and-pasted from other applications.
Regarding claim 9, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the first interface element comprises a video control and the second interface element comprises a video control, wherein a state of a video in the second interface element is the same as a state of a video in the first interface element, and the state of the video comprises at least one of a playback state, a non-playback state, or a playback progress.
However, Li discloses:
… wherein the first interface element comprises a video control and the second interface element comprises a video control, wherein a state of a video in the second interface element is the same as a state of a video in the first interface element, and the state of the video comprises at least one of a playback state, a non-playback state, or a playback progress. (Fig. 5A and [0070] “A device generally supports multiple applications such as one or more of the following: a drawing application, a presence application, a word processing application, a web creation application, a disk editing application, a spreadsheet application, a game application, a call application, a video conference application, an email application, an instant messaging application, an exercise support application, a photo management application, a digital camera application, a digital video camera application, a web browsing application, a digital music player application, and/or a digital video player application.” and [0200] “An example in which the applications corresponding to the application icons 501A-501D are video-type applications and the application corresponding to the application icon 503 is a game-type application is used for the following discussion.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the multiple applications include video-type applications that handle video playback and control.
Both Dunning and Li are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the art of application interface displaying and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the first interface element comprises a video control and the second interface element comprises a video control, wherein a state of a video in the second interface element is the same as a state of a video in the first interface element, and the state of the video comprises at least one of a playback state, a non-playback state, or a playback progress as seen in Li's invention into Dunning's invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that the text/images in the picture-in-picture display can be copy-and-pasted across different applications and a substitution to include videos and controls for those videos would be an understandable addition to the invention for the user’s necessity of different multimedia resources.
Regarding claim 10, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein:
when the second interface of the second application does not support insertion of the interface element of the video type, the third interface element comprises a video link or at least one picture control. (Fig. 4 showing both text and images and [0034] “The screen shot of FIG. 4 shows a transformation of the graphical user interface (GUI) triggered by the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions from the web browser to the word processor. It is the control software according to an embodiment of the disclosure that has detected the user's repeated copy-and-paste actions and in response thereto jumped to the GUI shown in FIG. 4. The web browser window is now presented as an overlay on top of the word processor window, with the presented part of the web page being that which the control software has sensed is the portion of the web page being of most interest to the user for copy-and-paste. This kind of overlay of one application window within another application window is termed a Picture-in-Picture (PiP) window.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the PiP GUI mode shows text and pictures overlayed over the text of a word processing application in which the video link can be copied-and-pasted into the word processing application because a video cannot be pasted in its video form into the word processing application.
Dunning does not explicitly disclose:
when the second interface of the second application supports insertion of an interface element of a video type, the third interface element comprises a video control;
However, Li discloses:
when the second interface of the second application supports insertion of an interface element of a video type, the third interface element comprises a video control; ([0212] “Subsequently, the device interface shifts to FIG. 5B, in which the application interface elements corresponding to the applications of a same type (for example, video-type applications) are automatically gathered into a new folder created on the device interface. Another application of another type (for example, a game-type application) is not moved.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the video-type applications’ interface elements are gathered into a folder together in which the video-type applications include video controls.
Both Dunning and Li are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the art of application interface displaying and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add when the second interface of the second application supports insertion of an interface element of a video type, the third interface element comprises a video control as seen in Li's invention into Dunning's invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that the control of text/images can additionally now handle video controls as the user could benefit from more forms of multimedia resources being available to copy-and-paste across different applications.
Regarding claim 11, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the first interface element comprises a card and/or a mini program, the second interface element comprises a card and/or a mini program, and data of the card and/or the mini program in the first interface element is the same as data of the card and/or the mini program in the second interface element.
However, Li discloses:
… wherein the first interface element comprises a card and/or a mini program, the second interface element comprises a card and/or a mini program, and data of the card and/or the mini program in the first interface element is the same as data of the card and/or the mini program in the second interface element. (Figs. 4-5E representing a plurality of application icons and [0212] “Subsequently, the device interface shifts to FIG. 5B, in which the application interface elements corresponding to the applications of a same type (for example, video-type applications) are automatically gathered into a new folder created on the device interface. Another application of another type (for example, a game-type application) is not moved.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the application icons represent mini programs and are gathered based on similar data typing.
Both Dunning and Li are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the art of application interface displaying and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the first interface element comprises a card and/or a mini program, the second interface element comprises a card and/or a mini program, and data of the card and/or the mini program in the first interface element is the same as data of the card and/or the mini program in the second interface element as seen in Li's invention into Dunning's invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that the mini program interface element can be copy-and-pasted across different applications similar to how text/images can be copy-and-pasted across multiple applications to ensure a use case of moving programs is available to the user.
Regarding claim 12, Dunning discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the displaying, by the terminal, the first window in response to detecting the first operation comprises:
enabling, by the terminal, the third application in response to detecting the first operation;
sending, by the first application, information about the first interface element to the third application; and
generating, by the third application, the second interface element based on the information about the first interface element;
wherein the information about the first interface element comprises one or more of a type of the first interface element, a location of the first interface element in the first interface, content of the first interface element, or a state of the first interface element, wherein the state of the first interface element comprising a selected state and an unselected state.
However, Li discloses:
… wherein the displaying, by the terminal, the first window in response to detecting the first operation comprises:
enabling, by the terminal, the third application in response to detecting the first operation; (Figs. 5A-5G and Abstract “As triggered by a user gesture, application interface elements that belong to applications of a same type are made movable. The movable application interface elements are automatically gathered into a same folder on a user interface. This helps a user gather application interface elements on a graphic user interface by performing a few operations, reduces manual operations of the user, saves electric power, and enhances user experience.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface element of the application is moved into the grouping of interface elements for applications which is a third application handling application interface element grouping.
sending, by the first application, information about the first interface element to the third application; and (Figs. 5A-5G and [0201] “It should be emphasized that in this specification, a rule for determining whether applications are applications of a same type, that is, a classification rule of the applications, is flexible. The classification rule may be preset before delivery of the device, or customized by the user and updated by using the network, or in a manner that is a combination thereof. The classification rule may be enabled by default, enabled as triggered by the user regularly (for example, periodically) or irregularly (for example, randomly), enabled as triggered by a network instruction, or enabled in a manner that is a combination thereof.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the specification for what classifies an application as the same or a different type is sent to the application to be used to determine the proper grouping of application types.
generating, by the third application, the second interface element based on the information about the first interface element; (Fig. 5D-E and [0215] “For another example, the device interface shifts to FIG. 5D, that is, the device provides a personalized selection opportunity, and waits for the user to select the application icon 503 (for example, an application icon of a different type than the application corresponding to the icon 501A), before the automatic movement of the application icons 501A-501D, by using a gesture 505-3 and then triggers an automatic movement of the icon. Then when the device responds to the user gesture and triggers application icons of a same type to be automatically gathered into the folder 507, the icon 503 is also moved into the folder 507 (FIG. 5E). It can be learned that although the game-type application corresponding to the icon 503 is not the same as the video-type application corresponding to the icon 501, more personalized choices are provided for the user, and therefore the device can provide a more efficient interaction interface, reduce user operation frequency, reduce power consumption, and improve user experience.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface elements are updated based on additional data outside of just application type such as personalized user choices of application groupings.
wherein the information about the first interface element comprises one or more of a type of the first interface element, a location of the first interface element in the first interface, content of the first interface element, or a state of the first interface element, wherein the state of the first interface element comprising a selected state and an unselected state. ([0201] “The applications of the same type include but are not limited to one of the following or any combination thereof: [0202] applications that come from a same or similar source (for example, two applications are applications installed before delivery from a factory, two applications are applications downloaded from a same or similar app store, or two applications are applications developed by a same or similar developer); [0203] applications that serve a same or similar purpose (for example, two applications are video-type applications, two applications are fitness-type applications, or two applications are finance-type applications); [0204] applications identified as a same or similar type (for example, two applications are identified as game-type applications on the app store, applications downloaded for a maximum quantity of times, applications downloaded for a maximum quantity of times in a period, or applications downloaded for a maximum quantity of times in a geographic area); [0205] applications with a same or similar use habit of users (for example, two applications are applications used by users for a quantity of times that falls in a specific range (for example, more than 1000 times), two applications are applications used or frequently used by users in a specific period (for example, for more than 50 times in the last month), two applications are applications used or frequently used by users in a specific geographic area, or two applications are applications accessed by users by using the same registration information).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the application information including source, purpose, type, and user habits all are data taken into account for grouping applications together.
Both Dunning and Li are in the same field of endeavor as they are both in the art of application interface displaying and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the displaying, by the terminal, the first window in response to detecting the first operation comprises: enabling, by the terminal, the third application in response to detecting the first operation; sending, by the first application, information about the first interface element to the third application; and generating, by the third application, the second interface element based on the information about the first interface element; wherein the information about the first interface element comprises one or more of a type of the first interface element, a location of the first interface element in the first interface, content of the first interface element, or a state of the first interface element, wherein the state of the first interface element comprising a selected state and an unselected state as seen in Li's invention into Dunning's invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that the picture in picture view is substituted for another application holding information/interface elements on applications to similarly be copy-and-pasted across various applications to improve a user’s efficiency in writing document applications, for example.
Regarding claims 13-17, they are terminal claims having the same limitations as cited in method claims 1-4 and 6, respectively. Thus, claims 13-17 are also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 above.
Regarding claims 18-20, they are non-transitory computer-readable storage media claims having the same limitations as cited in method claims 1-3, respectively. Thus, claims 18-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claims 1-3 above.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes:
- Klein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0067638) which discloses dragging objects off display edge to copy content to a clipboard which can be pasted in another location with a specific user gesture.
- Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0139766) which discloses after a specific content has been copied and saved in the clipboard, if an inter-application switching occurs, a user may intend to input the specific content to the switched application, so the action of pasting is performed automatically.
- Ravi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0047340) which discloses temporarily storing an extracted image in the memory, then may output the extracted image on an execution screen GUI corresponding to another application, so that the extracted image can be utilized on the other application immediately.
- Sambhi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0138270) which discloses tracking and remembering the elements from the source that are copied repetitively, and making a linkage between the source and sink, thereby allowing the user to effortlessly move data between applications without the use of repetitive copying and pasting between applications.
- Hayes et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,582,158 B2) which discloses a new representative GUI object created and displayed on screen that comprises a visual representation of only the selected part of a first GUI object. This second GUI object automatically replaces the first GUI object on the display screen, so any user interactions with the second GUI object are mapped to instructions to the application program.
- Webster et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0040862) which discloses sharing one or more application fragments between a local source, such as a file system view, and a remote application window, such as a web-based application presented in a web browser window or a window corresponding to a cross-platform runtime environment.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B TRAINOR whose telephone number is (571)272-3710. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights