DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Information Processing Device and Control Method for Displaying Specific Aspect Ratio Applications in Divided Regions,”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “display device”, and “pointing device” introduced in claims 1 and 9 and “processing unit”, “user instruction receiving unit”, and “display control unit” introduced in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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 “receives a user instruction”. However, “a user instruction” has been previously introduced. As a result, it is unclear whether the second “a user instruction” refers to the first or is introducing a new user instruction. Subsequent references to “the user instruction” are rendered unclear as well. As a result of this antecedent ambiguity, the scope of the claims is rendered indefinite. Similarly for claim 2.
Claim 1 recites “an application screen having a specific aspect ratio is displayed”. However, “a plurality of application screens” has been previously introduced. It is unclear whether this application screen is one of the plurality of application screens displayed, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “displays an application screen having the specific aspect ratio in the first floating region”. However, “a plurality of application screens” and “an application screen having a specific aspect ratio is displayed” have been previously referenced. This antecedent basis ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “determined to not satisfy a predetermined condition”. However, a predetermined condition has been previously introduced. This antecedent basis ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “displays another application screen in the first region if another application screen is displayed in the second screen”. It is unclear whether these two “another application screens” are the same or different. As a result, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “the other application screen”. However, an “other application screen” has not been previously introduced. Additional application screens have been introduced, such as “a plurality of application screens”, but it is not clear which of the applications screens is “the other”. This antecedent ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “one of the two divided regions”. However, “two divided regions” have not been previously introduced. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “divided regions” which were previously introduced, or a specific two of the divided regions. This antecedent ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “is a first region”. However, “a first region” has been previously introduced. This antecedent ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the two halves”. However, “two halves” have not been previously introduced. Claim 5 references “two divided regions”, however, this is not an introduction of “two halves”. As a result of this antecedent basis ambiguity, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “a horizontal length of the region”. However, “a first region”, “a floating region”, “divided regions”, “further divided regions”, “one divided region”, etc. have been previously introduced. This antecedent basis ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “if one of the divided regions obtained by dividing the screen of the display device into two regions, left and right”. It is unclear whether this is referencing the “two divided regions” or the “divided regions”. This antecedent basis ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “as a predetermined condition”. However, a predetermined condition has been previously introduced. This antecedent basis ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “the application screen”. However, “a plurality of application screens” and “an application screen having a specific aspect ratio” have been previously introduced. It is unclear which of these applications screens is being referenced, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “aspect ratio of the application screen”. However, “a plurality of application screens”, and “an application screen having a specific aspect ratio” have been previously introduced. This antecedent basis ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “does not satisfy a predetermined condition”. However, a predetermined condition has been previously introduced. This antecedent basis ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective independent or intervening claim(s) and are rejected on the same basis.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Bushong et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0118309) – referred to as Bushong herein.
Papamarcos et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0305692) – referred to as Papamarcos herein.
Pletcher et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0237049) – referred to as Pletcher herein.
Wayman et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0208196) – referred to as Wayman herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bushong.
Regarding claim 1, Bushong discloses an information processing device that is connected to a display device and a pointing device (Bushong, Fig. 1 with ¶0051-¶0069 – processor with hardware memory executing instructions to generate a display on a touch surface display device. “Display device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware display screen described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0045-¶0046. “Pointing device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware touch panel described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0046),
that simultaneously starts a plurality of applications, and that generates a display signal for displaying a plurality of application screens generated by the respective applications in divided regions on a screen of the display device (Bushong, Fig. 3 with ¶0066-¶0067, ¶0076, ¶0134 – simultaneously hosted applications, including video. Fig. 3 with ¶0069-¶0070 – divided plurality of regions for displaying windows),
the information processing device comprising: a user instruction receiving unit that receives a user instruction input by a user operation using the pointing device (Bushong, Fig. 1 with ¶0051-¶0069 – processor with hardware memory executing instructions to generate a display on a touch surface display device. “User instruction receiving unit“ is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware processor described in Applicant’s Specification 0047);
a processing unit that executes the plurality of applications; and a display control unit that manages the divided regions and generates the display signals (Bushong, Fig. 1 with ¶0054-¶0069 – processor with hardware memory executing instructions to generate a display on a touch surface display device. Fig. 3 with ¶0069-¶0070 – divided plurality of regions for displaying windows. “Processing unit“ and “Display control unit” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware processor described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0047);
wherein the user instruction receiving unit receives a user instruction to change the allocation of the divided regions; and the display control unit changes the allocation of the divided regions in accordance with the user instruction (Bushong, ¶0072-¶0073 – touch inputs can be used to move or resize windows),
determines whether a size of a first region in which an application screen having a specific aspect ratio is displayed satisfies a predetermined condition, generates a floating region independent of the allocation of the divided regions on the screen of the display device, and displays an application screen having the specific aspect ratio in the floating region if the size of the first region is determined to not satisfy a predetermined condition (Bushong, Figs. 3-12 with at least ¶0077 – window aspect ratios shown. ¶0075 – fixed windows maintain size that can be configured. ¶0076-¶0077 – pop-up window displayed when the boundaries of the region are too small for the fixed window).
Regarding claim 5, Bushong discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the screen of the display device is a rectangle with a horizontal side that is longer than the vertical side (Bushong, Figs. 2-12 – horizontal side of the display is longer than the vertical side);
the display control unit uses one of the two divided regions, left or right, of the display device as one divided region and further divides the other of the two halves, left or right, into two further divided regions, upper and lower (Bushong, Fig. 4 – two halves (left and right) divided into two further regions (upper and lower));
the display control unit uses a horizontal length of the region as a predetermined condition if one of the divided regions obtained by dividing the screen of the display device into two regions, left and right, is a first region (Bushong, ¶0076-¶0077 – pop-up window displayed when the horizontal and/or vertical boundaries of the region are too small for the fixed window); and
the display control unit uses a vertical length of the region obtained by dividing the other region of the two left or right regions of the screen of the display device if either of the divided regions further divided into upper and lower regions is the first region (Bushong, ¶0076-¶0077 – pop-up window displayed when the horizontal and/or vertical boundaries of the region are too small for the fixed window).
Regarding claim 8, Bushong discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the user operation on the pointing device is a drag operation (Bushong, Figs. 14-15 with ¶0081-¶0083, ¶0086-¶0087 – drag and drop the floating region to a new location).
Regarding claim 9, Bushong discloses a display control method for an information processing device connected to a display device and a pointing device (Bushong, Fig. 1 with ¶0051-¶0069 – processor with hardware memory executing instructions to generate a display on a touch surface display device. “Display device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware display screen described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0045-¶0046. “Pointing device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware touch panel described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0046) that
simultaneously starts a plurality of applications and that generates a display signal for displaying a plurality of application screens generated by the respective applications in divided regions on a screen of the display device (Bushong, Fig. 3 with ¶0066-¶0067, ¶0076, ¶0134 – simultaneously hosted applications, including video. Fig. 3 with ¶0069-¶0070 – divided plurality of regions for displaying windows),
the display control method comprising the steps of: accepting a user instruction for changing the allocation of the divided regions by a user operation on the pointing device; changing the allocation of the divided regions in accordance with the user instruction (Bushong, Fig. 1 with ¶0051-¶0069 – processor with hardware memory executing instructions to generate a display on a touch surface display device);
determining whether a size of a first region, in which an application screen having a specific aspect ratio is displayed, satisfies a predetermined condition; and generating a floating region independent of the allocation of the divided region on the screen of the display device, and displaying an application screen having the specific aspect ratio of the floating region when it is determined that the size of the first region does not satisfy a predetermined condition (Bushong, Figs. 3-12 with at least ¶0077 – window aspect ratios shown. ¶0075 – fixed windows maintain size that can be configured. ¶0076-¶0077 – pop-up window displayed when the boundaries of the region are too small for the fixed window).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushong in view of Papamarcos.
Regarding claim 2, Bushong discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the user instruction receiving unit receives a user instruction requesting movement of the
However, Bushong appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Papamarcos discloses managing application window layouts (Papamarcos, Abstract), including
displays the application screen that was displayed in the floating region in the second region, and deletes the floating region (Papamarcos, Fig. 1 with ¶0050 – overlapping windows. Figs. 2-8 with ¶0030-¶0033 – window is dragged to invocation region where snap layout options are shown. ¶0053-¶0054 -¶0060 – selection of the zone results in allocating the floating window in the associated snap region and deleting the dragged floating window from its position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the floating window of Bushong to include allocating the floating window to an available display location based on the teachings of Papamarcos. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to streamline the screen configuration (Papamarcos, ¶0003), and to enable users to maintain the floating window while accessing other applications, especially for floating windows that the user wishes to have persist for an extended period.
Regarding claim 3, Bushong discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the display control unit displays another application screen in the first region if another application screen is displayed in the second region when the application screen that was displayed in the floating region is displayed in the second region (Bushong, ¶0072-¶0073 – touch inputs can be used to move or resize windows. Moving a window to a location with another window can result in a swap between the two application windows).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushong in view of Papamarcos in further view of Pletcher.
Regarding claim 4, Bushong discloses the elements of claim 3 above, and further discloses wherein the display control unit
However, Bushong appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pletcher discloses managing a floating window (Pletcher, Abstract – undocked sub-window), including
temporarily deletes the first region from the screen of the display device when displaying the floating region (Pletcher, Fig. 3 with ¶0050-¶0054 – Undocked window is separated from the parent window and is shown removed from the contents of the parent window. ¶0044-¶0045, ¶0057 – undocked window can be redocked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the floating window of Bushong to include undocking the entire window from the layout based on the teachings of Pletcher. The motivation for doing so would have been enable users to view the entire contents of the window in context for windows that are too small to display in currently docked region.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushong in view of Wayman.
Regarding claim 6, Bushong discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Bushong appears not to expressly disclose wherein the predetermined condition varies depending on the aspect ratio of the application screen.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wayman discloses managing displayed graphical layouts (Wayman, Abstract), including
wherein the predetermined condition varies depending on the aspect ratio of the application screen (Wayman, ¶0052, ¶0057-¶0059 – comparison of the content aspect ratio to the layout aspect ratio to determine an unsatisfactory fit. If the ratio exceeds a threshold, or is less than a threshold, the fit may be determined unsatisfactory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fit determination of Bushong to include aspect ratio comparison to a threshold based on the teachings of Wayman. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively determine poor fit or visibility for content.
Regarding claim 7, Bushong as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the predetermined condition is that the difference or ratio between the aspect ratio of the first region and the aspect ratio of the application screen is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (Wayman, ¶0052-¶0059 – comparison of the content aspect ratio to the layout aspect ratio to determine an unsatisfactory fit. If the ratio exceeds a threshold, or is less than a threshold, the fit may be determined unsatisfactory).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References are at least relevant as indicated in the corresponding summary.
Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0167061) – resizing divided layout, removing and swapping content and layout elements.
Blinnikka et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0049385) – popping out embedded video into a floating window when space is insufficient.
Kuscher et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0121028) – comparison of minimum requirements including aspect ratio for window placement.
Bogart et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0262482) – comparison of aspect ratio for layout placement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights