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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (US Patent 5,838,318, hereinafter "Porter"), in view of Fang et al. (US 2014/0310728 A1, hereinafter “Fang”).
Claim 1: Porter teaches A system for generating a plurality of windows arrangements for one or more displays, comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to control the system to perform:
executing a running application (“Porter”, col. 5, line 60-col 6, line 3, system 100 executes the Microsoft window allows multiple applications to execute concurrently in separate display windows);
while executing the running application, receiving a first user input requesting to generate a plurality of windows arrangements for a display (“Porter”, Figs. 4A-4B, col. 8, line 50-line 65, a user requests to arrange the windows through a menu option or tool bar button; Fig. 6, col. 10, lines 10-20, 60-65);
in response to receiving the first user input, identifying, based on contextual information with respect to the running application, a group of applications, in addition to the running application, to be included in the windows arrangements for the display (“Porter”, Fig. 6, col. 10, line 55-col 11, line 45. The system groups windows according to their domain and class; col. 13, lines 36-49),
generating the plurality of windows arrangements based the contextual information (“Porter”, Figs. 4A-4B, Figs. 6-7, col. 9, lines 31-55; col. 10, line 55-col 11, line 45; generates multiple arrangements for the identified domain and classes).
However, Porter does not explicitly teach the following feature, taught by Fang who teaches wherein the contextual information comprises at least one of a developer-suggested grouping, sizing, positioning, or a combination thereof, wherein the developer is the developer of the running application (“Fang”, Fig. 2, source application 206 is already running application that invokes target application 208; Fig. 6, [0025]-[0039], [0042]; [0043], these application specific parameters may be stored in an application manifest, a skilled artisan would have understood manifest stored parameters as preferences defined by the developer of the running application).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porter’s multiple window arrangement to incorporate Fang’s source application placement preferences. The modification would predictably provide more contextual relevant arrangements and improve use of the available display area.
Claim 2: Porter and Fang teach the system of claim 1, wherein the generating of the plurality of windows arrangements includes:
generating a first arrangement of windows associated with a first sub-set of applications of the group, and defining a size and position of each of the windows associated with the first sub-set of applications and the running application (“Porter”, Figs. 4A-4B, Figs. 6-7, col. 8, line 60-col. 9, line 42; the Class 2 applications 424-425 constitute the claimed first subset, and one of the concurrently executing Class 3 applications such as chat application 423, constitutes the claimed running application); and
generating a third arrangement of windows associated with the first sub-set of applications and the running application, the third arrangement of windows defining a size and position of each of the windows associated with the first sub-set of applications and the running application, wherein the size and position of a window for the running application are different from the first arrangement of windows (“Porter”, Fig. 4A, col. 9, lines 31-43); and
concurrently displaying selectable representations of the plurality of windows arrangements including the first arrangement of windows, the second arrangement of windows, and the third arrangement of windows for the display (“Porter”, Figs. 4A-4B, col. 8, line 60-col. 9, line 3; col. 9, lines 44-55; selection window 410).
However, Porter does not explicitly teach the following feature, taught by Fang who teaches generating a second arrangement of windows associated with a second sub-set of applications from the group that is different from the first sub-set of applications, and defining a size and position of each of the windows associated with the second sub-set of applications and the running application (“Fang”, [0025]-[0039] and [0042]-[0046], application placement preference parameters may include selecting a second subset of applications different from the first set);
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Porter’s multiple window arrangement to incorporate Fang’s source application placement preferences. The modification would predictably provide more contextual relevant arrangements and improve use of the available display area.
Claim 3: Porter and Fang teach the system of claim 2, wherein:
the group of the applications comprises first and second applications (“Porter”, Fig. 4A, col. 9, lines 25-30; the group includes application 424 and 425);
the plurality of windows arrangements comprises the first arrangement including first and second windows associated with the first and second applications, respectively, the first arrangement defining a size and position of each of the first and second windows on the display (“Porter”, Fig. 4A, col. 9, lines 25-38), and
the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the system to perform: receiving a second user input selecting the first arrangement (“Porter”, Fig. 4A, col. 8, lines 50-65; col. 10, lines 10-20); and
in response to receiving the second user input, displaying, via the display, the first and second windows according to the size and position defined by the first arrangement for each of the first and second windows (“Porter”, Figs. 5-7, col. 10, lines 10-20, col. 11, line 45-col. 13, line 27).
Claim 4: Porter and Fang teach the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of windows arrangements is a plurality of first windows arrangements, the display is a first display, the group of applications is a first group of applications, and the instructions, when executed by the processor (“Porter”, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 33-39 and 50-54; system 100 includes display devices 123 and 132), further cause the processor to control the system to perform:
receiving a second user input requesting to generate a plurality of second windows arrangements for a second display (“Porter”, Figs. 5-6, col. 8, lines 54-60, col. 10, lines 10-20 and 55-65);
in response to receiving the second user input, identifying, based on the contextual information, a second group of the applications to be included in the second windows arrangements (“Porter”, Figs. 6 and 8, col. 10, line 55—col. 11, line 45; col. 13, lines 36-49);
generating, based on second display information of the second display and the contextual information, the plurality of second windows arrangements, each second windows arrangement providing a different on-screen arrangement of a plurality of windows associated with the applications of the second group, respectively, and defining a size and position of each of the windows on the second display; and
concurrently displaying, for selection, the plurality of second windows arrangements for the second display (“Porter”, Figs. 4A-4B, col. 5, lines 30-44; col. 8, line 60-col. 9, line 3, col. 9, lines 31-55; col. 10, line 3-10).
Claim 5: Porter and Fang teach the system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of first windows arrangements and the plurality of second windows arrangements are displayed in a menu box (“Porter”, Figs. 4A-4B, col. 8, line 60-col. 9, line 3, selection window 410 constitutes the claimed menu box).
Claim 6: Porter and Fang teach the system of claim 1, wherein the group of applications is identified further based on display information including at least one of a number of display devices, display orientation, display size, display resolution and display aspect ratio (“Porter”, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 35-64; Figs. 4A-4B, col. 5, lines 29-43; col. 10, lines 3-9).
Claim 7: Porter and Fang teach the system of claim 1, wherein the contextual information identifies one or more applications included in a Z-order of a plurality of applications displayed on the display (“Porter”, Figs. 4A-4B, col. 5, col. 9, lines 29-45, display overlapping windows constitutes the claimed Z-order).
Claim 8: Porter and Fang teach the system of claim 1, wherein the contextual information further comprises event information related to a scheduled event in the future (“Porter”, col. 5, col. 10, lines 34-43, col. 14, line 59-col 15, line 6).
Claim 10: claim 10 is directed to a computer-implemented method for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11: claim 11 is directed to the computer-implemented method of claim 10 for implementing the method steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12: claim 12 is directed to the method of claim 11 for implementing the method steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13: claim 13 is directed to the method of claim 10 for implementing the method steps of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14: claim 14 is directed to the method of claim 13 for implementing the method steps of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15: claim 15 is directed to the method of claim 10 for implementing the method steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16: claim 16 is directed to the method of claim 10 for implementing the method steps of claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17: claim 17 is directed to the method of claim 10 for implementing the method steps of claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19: claim 19 is directed to a system for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20: claim 20 is directed to the system of claim 19 for implementing the method steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied 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.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights