DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the cloud” (line 10) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claims 2-9 inherit the features of claim 1 and are objected to accordingly.
Claim 4: “the cloud” (lines 2 and 4) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 5 inherits the features of claim 4 and is objected to accordingly.
Claim 5: “the cloud” (line 2) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 7: “the cloud” (line 3) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 8: “the cloud” (lines 3, 4, 8, and 9) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 10: “the cloud” (line 12) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claims 11-18 inherit the features of claim 10 and are objected to accordingly.
Claim 13: “the cloud” (lines 2 and 4) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 14 inherits the features of claim 13 and is objected to accordingly.
Claim 14: “the cloud” (line 2) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 16: “the cloud” (line 3) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 17: “the cloud” (lines 3, 4, 8, and 9) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 19: “the cloud” (line 11) should have been –the bound cloud—.
Claim 20 inherits the features of claim 19 and is objected to accordingly.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant is advised to review the entire claims for further needed corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitations "the first application" and “the second application” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is not clear if these limitations are referring to “a first application interface” and “a second application interface” previously recited in the claim, or to a first and second applications corresponding to these interfaces, or to some other applications.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider the limitations “the first application" and “the second application” as referring to –a first application of the first application interface— and –a second application of the second application interface—, respectively.
Claims 2-9 inherit the features of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the first application" and “the second application” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is not clear if these limitations are referring to “a first application interface” and “a second application interface” previously recited in the claim, or to a first and second applications corresponding to these interfaces, or to some other applications.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider the limitations “the first application" and “the second application” as referring to –a first application of the first application interface— and –a second application of the second application interface—, respectively.
Claims 11-18 inherit the features of claim 10 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the first application" and “the second application” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is not clear if these limitations are referring to “a first application interface” and “a second application interface” previously recited in the claim, or to a first and second applications corresponding to these interfaces, or to some other applications.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider the limitations “the first application" and “the second application” as referring to –a first application of the first application interface— and –a second application of the second application interface—, respectively.
Claim 20 inherits the features of claim 19 and is rejected accordingly.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0286449 A1) in view of Liu (US 2025/0130825 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Yang teaches: A method for presenting information, comprising:
at an electronic device (see e.g. Yang, Fig. 1: “Electronic Device 101”; and paragraph 85) in communication (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 62: “bus 110 may include circuitry, such as, that interconnects the components 110-170 and delivers communications (such as control messages and/or data)”) with a display (see e.g. Yang, Fig. 1: “Display 160”; and paragraph 70) and one or more input devices (see e.g. Fig. 1: “Input/Output Interface 150”; and paragraph 69):
presenting a three-dimensional computer-generated environment via the display (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 230: “FIG. 12 shows an example 1 of a display interface in a 3D mode”; and Fig. 12), and displaying a first application interface and a second application interface on the three-dimensional computer-generated environment (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 185: “after the 3D mode is entered, a plurality of application interfaces are displayed on a plurality of windows”; paragraph 230: “a video application 1203 may be displayed in a middlemost position of a user's line of sight. A WeChat chat software interface 1202 is displayed on a left side, a news reference interface 1204 is displayed on a right side”; and Fig. 12), the first application and the second application being of different types of operating system applications (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 230: “a video application 1203… A WeChat chat software interface 1202… a news reference interface 1204”; and paragraph 106: “an operating system (OS) configured to control resources associated with the electronic device (such as the electronic device 101) and/or various applications (such as the applications 147) executing in the operating system. The operating system may be, for example, Android®, iOS®, Windows®, Symbian®, Tizen® or Samsung BadaOS®, and the like”);
in response to a first operation for the first application interface (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 118: “notification information generated from another application (such as an SMS/MMS application, an email application, a security application or an environment information application)”; and paragraph 230: “A WeChat chat software interface 1202 is displayed on a left side, a news reference interface 1204 is displayed on a right side or another live picture is displayed on a right side, in this way, the user may view WeChat friend information while watching a sports game live broadcast, the user may further view related news of the sports game without closing other windows, and may input words at any time”), uploading target information obtained by the first operation to a bound cloud sharing space (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 118: “notification information generated from another application (such as an SMS/MMS application, an email application, a security application or an environment information application) of the electronic device 101 is transferred to an external electronic device”; and paragraph 73: “The electronic devices 101 may process the received results as a present situation, additionally, processing the results and providing the requested functions or services. For this purpose, for example, cloud computing, distributed computing or client-server computing techniques may be used”); and
in response to a second operation for the second application interface (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 118: “notification information generated from another application (such as an SMS/MMS application, an email application, a security application or an environment information application)”; and paragraph 230: “A WeChat chat software interface 1202 is displayed on a left side, a news reference interface 1204 is displayed on a right side or another live picture is displayed on a right side, in this way, the user may view WeChat friend information while watching a sports game live broadcast, the user may further view related news of the sports game without closing other windows, and may input words at any time”),
Yang does not but Liu teaches:
transferring the target information to the second application interface for presentation through the cloud sharing space (see e.g. Liu, paragraph 9: “interface of each application is automatically displayed by using a split-screen window. Each of the plurality of applications can enable data sharing space for the plurality of applications”; paragraph 335: “applications have permission to access application data of each other”; and paragraph 337: “two WeChat applications can access application data of each other. In other words, the data space of the two WeChat applications does not need to be isolated”).
Yang and Liu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: providing and managing a user interface that presents multiple application interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with the teachings of Liu. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the user experience (see e.g. Liu, paragraph 9).
With respect to claim 4, Yang as modified teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the target information to the second application interface for presentation through the cloud sharing space comprises:
Yang does not but Liu teaches:
downloading the target information to a second system cache corresponding to the second application interface through the cloud sharing space (see e.g. Liu, paragraph 34: “a target storage area of the electronic device, the target storage area can store data of each of the M applications, and any two of the M applications have permission to access each other and obtain data of each other”; and paragraph 335: “applications have permission to access application data of each other”); and
transferring the target information to the second application interface for presentation through the second system cache area (see e.g. Liu, paragraph 9: “Each of the plurality of applications can enable data sharing space for the plurality of applications”; paragraph 34: “the target storage area can store data of each of the M applications, and any two of the M applications have permission to access each other and obtain data of each other”; paragraph 337: “two WeChat applications can access application data of each other”; and paragraph 105: “An interface of the WeChat application may be displayed”).
Yang and Liu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: providing and managing a user interface that presents multiple application interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with the teachings of Liu. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the user experience (see e.g. Liu, paragraph 9).
With respect to claim 6, Yang as modified teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Yang does not but Liu teaches:
in response to a user login operation in the three-dimensional computer-generated environment, allocating a corresponding cloud sharing space for the user (see e.g. Liu, paragraph 329: “The “account” may include device accounts for logging in to electronic devices such as a mobile phone, a tablet, and a smart screen (for example, a plurality of home devices may correspond to one Huawei account), and/or a login account used for logging in to a specific application (for example, a WeChat account or a QQ account unique to each user)”), and binding the corresponding cloud sharing space to a login identifier of the user (see e.g. Liu, paragraph 330: “If the user adds, to the Combined app 1, the WeChat application displayed on the home screen of the mobile phone, and the added WeChat application corresponds to the same icon and the login account of the same user, after the user starts the Combined app 1, two split-screen windows on the display of the mobile phone may be both used to display interfaces of the WeChat application, and the user may set different “target interfaces” for the two split-screen windows”).
Yang and Liu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: providing and managing a user interface that presents multiple application interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with the teachings of Liu. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve security.
With respect to claim 9, Yang as modified teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the target information comprises text information (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 70: “display various types of content (such as a text”), a picture (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 70: “display various types of content (such as… an image”; and paragraph 230: “An NBA game live broadcast picture”), an audio (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 101: “An audio module 280 may perform bidirectional conversion on, for example, a sound and an electrical signal”), and a video (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 70: “display various types of content (such as… a video”; and paragraph 230: “An NBA game live broadcast picture that is live broadcast by a video application 1203”) in the first application interface (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 185: “a plurality of application interfaces are displayed on a plurality of windows”; paragraph 230: “a video application 1203 may be displayed in a middlemost position of a user's line of sight. A WeChat chat software interface 1202 is displayed on a left side, a news reference interface 1204 is displayed on a right side”; and Fig. 12).
With respect to claims 10, 13, 15, and 18: Claims 10, 13, 15, and 18 are directed to an electronic device comprising a processor and a memory configured to store an executable instruction of the processor to execute a method corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1, 4, 6, and 9, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 which also cover the limitations recited in claims 10, 13, 15, and 18. Note that, Yang also discloses an electronic device 101 comprising a processor 120 and memory 130 with instructions to implement the method disclosed in claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 (see e.g. Yang, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 19: Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements a method corresponding to the method disclosed in claim 1; please see the rejection directed to claim 1 above which also covers the limitations recited in claim 19. Note that, Yang also discloses a computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions to implement the method disclosed in claim 1 (see e.g. Yang, paragraph 252).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Liu as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Carter et al. (US 2017/0004153 A1; hereinafter “Carter”).
With respect to claim 2, Yang as modified teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein uploading the target information obtained by the first operation to the bound cloud sharing space comprises:
Yang does not but Carter teaches:
caching the target information obtained by the first operation through a first system cache area corresponding to the first application interface (see e.g. Carter, paragraph 26: “creating a “logical container,” or more generally creating a “container” 122 for the backups in the cache 118… first snapshot (“SS”) copies are obtained for the applications APP1, APP2 in accordance with the backup logic. The backup logic migrates the first APP1 snapshot (“SS1”) copy to a newly created container 1221”; and Fig. 2: “Cache 118”); and
backing up the target information in the bound cloud sharing space through the first system cache area (see e.g. Carter, paragraph 26: “applications logically organize the backups in a cache memory (or “cache”) 118 residing in each ASC 114i. A virtualization module 120 creates a logical storage hierarchy in terms referred to herein as creating a “logical container,” or more generally creating a “container” 122 for the backups in the cache 118… first snapshot (“SS”) copies are obtained for the applications APP1, APP2 in accordance with the backup logic. The backup logic migrates the first APP1 snapshot (“SS1”) copy to a newly created container 1221 by the PUT request https://ASC.APP1.SS1. FIG. 3 depicts the container 1221 contains that first snapshot labeled in terms of its sequential snapshot number and application number, “SS11” (meaning the first snapshot copy for application APP1)”).
Yang and Carter are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing application data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with the teachings of Carter. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the overall reliability of the system.
With respect to claim 3, Yang as modified teaches: The method of claim 2, wherein after backing up the target information in the bound cloud sharing space through the first system cache area, the method further comprises:
Yang does not but Carter teaches:
clearing the cached target information in the first system cache area (see e.g. Carter, paragraph 28: “The cache 118 is only a temporary repository for the backups. Eventually, the ASC 114i flushes the cached backups to internal data storage capacity 119 to prevent saturation of the cache 118”).
Yang and Carter are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing application data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with the teachings of Carter. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the overall reliability of the system.
With respect to claim 5, Yang as modified teaches: The method of claim 4,
Yang does not but Carter teaches:
wherein before downloading the target information to the second system cache corresponding to the second application interface through the cloud sharing space, the method further comprises:
clearing cached content in the second system cache area (see e.g. Carter, paragraph 28: “The cache 118 is only a temporary repository for the backups. Eventually, the ASC 114i flushes the cached backups to internal data storage capacity 119 to prevent saturation of the cache 118”).
Yang and Carter are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing application data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with the teachings of Carter. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve memory utilization.
With respect to claim 7, Yang as modified teaches: The method of claim 1,
Yang does not but Carter teaches:
wherein before uploading the target information obtained by the first operation to the bound cloud sharing space, the method further comprises:
clearing transferred content in the cloud sharing space (see e.g. Carter, paragraph 28: “The cache 118 is only a temporary repository for the backups. Eventually, the ASC 114i flushes the cached backups to internal data storage capacity 119 to prevent saturation of the cache 118”).
Yang and Carter are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing application data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with the teachings of Carter. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve memory utilization.
With respect to claims 11, 12, 14, and 16: Claims 11, 12, 14, and 16 are directed to an electronic device comprising a processor and a memory configured to store an executable instruction of the processor to execute a method corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 2, 3, 5, and 7, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 which also cover the limitations recited in claims 11, 12, 14, and 16.
With respect to claim 20: Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements a method corresponding to the method disclosed in claim 2; please see the rejection directed to claim 2 above which also covers the limitations recited in claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not explicitly disclose transforming a bound cloud sharing space between transferable and untransferable states as recited in claims 8 and 17.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. (US 2023/0119849 A1) discloses a three-dimensional interface in a virtual environment that displays three-dimensional interfaces of a plurality of applications to control the plurality of applications (see paragraph 123).
Sun et al. (US 2022/0236790 A1) discloses displaying interfaces of a plurality of applications on different virtual screens in a virtual environment of a three-dimensional space (see paragraph 51).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights