DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 8/15/2024. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending in the case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Singal et al. (US 20160239163 A1, hereinafter Singal).
As to independent claim 1, Singal discloses a display control method, performed by a terminal (Fig. 1, computing device 102), the method comprising:
obtaining, in response to a screen of the terminal being converted from a first posture to a second posture, control elements on the screen under the first posture and size information of the control elements (“ the launcher module 118 is configured to support reflow of items (e.g., representations) to support a predictable and consistent arrangement between different layouts caused by resizing, change in orientation, and so on of the application launcher 120” paragraph 0042), wherein a first size of the screen under the first posture along a specified direction (Fig. 4 landscape layout) and a second size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction are different (Fig. 5 portrait layout), the control elements on the screen under the first posture are pre-divided into at least one control group, and each control group comprises at least one of the control elements (“FIG. 4 depicts an example implementation 400 in which the application launcher 120 of FIG. 1 includes representations arranged in a first layout that includes groups. The application launcher 120 includes first, second, third, and fourth groups 402, 404, 406, 408 in this example. As before, groups 402, 408 form a first linear arrangement and groups 404, 406 form a second linear arrangement, e.g., columns in this example.” Paragraph 0044, each group includes items);
determining, based on size information associated with the control group and the second size of the screen under the second posture, a target control group that needs to be adjusted and an adjustment approach for the target control group, wherein the size information associated with the control group comprises the size information of the control elements and size information of the control group (“there are cases where the width within a group as well as a number of groups that are displayable at any one time may change. These also include when a user selects a toggle for representation density, e.g., “show more tiles.” If this toggle is selected, each of the groups within the application launcher may become wider to support display of additional representations along this dimension. Likewise, selection of the toggle again (e.g., to turn it off) may cause the application launcher 120 to revert back to a lower density of tiles.” Paragraph 0041. “Accordingly, the launcher module 118 is configured to support reflow of items (e.g., representations) to support a predictable and consistent arrangement between different layouts caused by resizing, change in orientation, and so on of the application launcher 120.[…..]For example, in a cell-based layout in a user interface coordinates of items are known which may then be used to preserve a general spatial relationship of the items, one to another. In another example, in a linked list an order as well as a size and height of items may be known and used to determine and preserve a priority ordering.” Paragraph 0042-0047. “The first layout of FIG. 4, for instance, includes two linear arrangements of groups in which each group includes four medium sized representations, e.g., square tiles, along a horizontal dimension in the application launcher 120. Thus, each row within the application launcher 120 is configured to include eight of these representations. In the second layout of FIG. 5, however, each of the groups is configured to include two of these medium-sized representations for a total of four such representations along any one row in the application launcher 120. Thus, in this example a change along a horizontal dimension within the application launcher 120 is made between the first and second layouts that causes a difference in the layouts, e.g., an amount of display area available in this dimension.” Paragraph 0049); and
adjusting the target control group according to the adjustment approach for the target control group, to display the control elements on the screen under the second posture based on a display position of the at least one control group after being adjusted (“FIG. 5 depicts an example implementation in which the application launcher of FIG. 1 includes representations arranged in a second layout from the first layout of FIG. 4 (i.e., position adjustment), paragraph 0048-0051).
Claims 10-11 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
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.
Claims 2-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singal et al. (US 20160239163 A1, hereinafter Singal) in view of Engel et al. (US 20170357393 A1, hereinafter Engel).
As to dependent claim 2, Singal teaches the method according to claim 1, Singal further teaches wherein the control group is determined as a parent control element, and the control element in the control group is determined as a child control element of the parent control element (For example, group 402 includes low-level control elements, paragraph 0046, “The application launcher 120, for instance, may be configured as a root level of a hierarchical file structure, e.g., each of the other levels are “beneath” the root level in the hierarchy.” paragraph 0031), and
wherein determining, based on the size information associated with the control group and the size of the screen under the second posture (horizontal and vertical screen shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5), the target control group that needs to be adjusted and the adjustment approach for the target control group, comprises:
determining, in response to a size of the parent control element along the specified direction being greater than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, the parent control element as a target parent control element, wherein in the case where the screen under the first posture is horizontal and the screen under the second posture is vertical, the specified direction is a horizontal direction, and in the case where the screen under the first posture is vertical and the screen under the second posture is horizontal, the specified direction is a vertical direction (horizontal screen and vertical screen shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
Singal does not appear to expressly teach determining, based on size information of the child control element of the target parent control element and the size of the screen under the second posture, a target child control element that needs to be adjusted and an adjustment approach for the target control element.
Engel teaches determining, based on size information of the child control element of the target parent control element and the size of the screen under the second posture, a target child control element that needs to be adjusted (“In the first type of container, referred to as a VGroup in the following discussion, the default space allocation consists of dividing the vertical space in the container equally among the objects in the container. It should be noted that when the display screen changes from portrait mode to landscape mode, the available space in the container changes, the vertical space being reduced and the horizontal space being increased. Hence, each component in the container is assigned a new space when the change in orientation takes place and the components' representations are likewise resized,” paragraph 0019-0021).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to Singal to comprise determining, based on size information of the child control element of the target parent control element and the size of the screen under the second posture, a target child control element that needs to be adjusted. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve efficiency in user interaction with the user interfaces.
As to dependent claim 3, Singal teaches the method according to claim 2, Singal does not appear to expressly teach wherein determining the target child control element that needs to be adjusted and the adjustment approach for the target child control element, comprises:
determining, in response to a size of the child control element along the specified direction being greater than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, the child control element as a first target child control element; and
determining the adjustment approach for the first target child control element as size adjustment.
Engel teaches determining, in response to a size of the child control element along the specified direction being greater than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, the child control element as a first target child control element; and determining the adjustment approach for the first target child control element as size adjustment (“In the first type of container, referred to as a VGroup in the following discussion, the default space allocation consists of dividing the vertical space in the container equally among the objects in the container. It should be noted that when the display screen changes from portrait mode to landscape mode, the available space in the container changes, the vertical space being reduced and the horizontal space being increased. Hence, each component in the container is assigned a new space when the change in orientation takes place and the components' representations are likewise resized.” Paragraph 0019)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to Singal to comprise determining, in response to a size of the child control element along the specified direction being greater than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, the child control element as a first target child control element; and determining the adjustment approach for the first target child control element as size adjustment. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve efficiency in user interaction with the user interfaces.
As to dependent claim 4, Singal teaches the method according to claim 2, Singal further teaches wherein determining the target child control element that needs to be adjusted and the adjustment approach for the target child control element, comprises: determining, in response to a sum of sizes of multiple child control elements located at the same specified position along the specified direction being greater than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, the multiple child control elements as second target child control elements; and determining the adjustment approach for the second target child control elements as position adjustment (“The first layout of FIG. 4, for instance, includes two linear arrangements of groups in which each group includes four medium sized representations, e.g., square tiles, along a horizontal dimension in the application launcher 120. Thus, each row within the application launcher 120 is configured to include eight of these representations. In the second layout of FIG. 5, however, each of the groups is configured to include two of these medium-sized representations for a total of four such representations along any one row in the application launcher 120. Thus, in this example a change along a horizontal dimension within the application launcher 120 is made between the first and second layouts that causes a difference in the layouts, e.g., an amount of display area available in this dimension.” Paragraph 0049).
As to dependent claim 5, Singal teaches the method according to claim 2, Singal further teaches wherein the parent control element comprises a dynamically filled container (groups 402-408 in Fig. 4), and wherein a first specified edge spacing between adjacent child control elements of the parent control element remains unchanged, and a second specified edge spacing between an inner edge of the parent control element and the child control element adjacent to the parent control element remains unchanged (compare Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, the spacing remain unchanged).
As to dependent claim 6, Singal teaches the method according to claim 1, Singal does not appear to expressly teach wherein the target control group comprises a first target child control element and a second target child control element, and wherein adjusting the target control group according to the adjustment approach for the target control group, comprises: adjusting, according to an automatic layout approach, a size of the first target child control element and a position of the second target child control element, to enable the size of the first target child control element along the specified direction to be smaller than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, and to enable a sum of sizes of second target child control elements located at the same specified position along the specified direction to be smaller than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction.
Engel teaches adjusting, according to an automatic layout approach, a size of the first target child control element and a position of the second target child control element, to enable the size of the first target child control element along the specified direction to be smaller than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, and to enable a sum of sizes of second target child control elements located at the same specified position along the specified direction to be smaller than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction (“when the display screen changes from portrait mode to landscape mode, the available space in the container changes, the vertical space being reduced and the horizontal space being increased. Hence, each component in the container is assigned a new space when the change in orientation takes place and the components' representations are likewise resized.” Paragraph 0019).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to Singal to comprise wherein the target control group comprises a first target child control element and a second target child control element, and wherein adjusting the target control group according to the adjustment approach for the target control group, comprises: adjusting, according to an automatic layout approach, a size of the first target child control element and a position of the second target child control element, to enable the size of the first target child control element along the specified direction to be smaller than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, and to enable a sum of sizes of second target child control elements located at the same specified position along the specified direction to be smaller than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve efficiency in user interaction with the user interfaces.
As to dependent claim 7, Singal teaches the method according to claim 6, Singal does not appear to expressly teach the method further comprising: adjusting, in response to the sum of the sizes of the second target child control elements located at the same specified position along the specified direction being greater than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, the sizes of the second target child control elements after the position of the second target child control element is adjusted.
Engel teaches adjusting, in response to the sum of the sizes of the second target child control elements located at the same specified position along the specified direction being greater than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, the sizes of the second target child control elements after the position of the second target child control element is adjusted (“FIGS. 1A and 1B, which illustrate displays on a data processing system which includes a VGroup having three buttons in portrait and landscape mode, respectively. When the orientation changes from portrait to landscape, the space available for each button changes such that the vertical height of each button is reduced and the width is increased. The fonts are changed accordingly to fit the available space.” Paragraph 0021).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to Singal to comprise adjusting, in response to the sum of the sizes of the second target child control elements located at the same specified position along the specified direction being greater than the size of the screen under the second posture along the specified direction, the sizes of the second target child control elements after the position of the second target child control element is adjusted. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to improve efficiency in user interaction with the user interfaces.
As to dependent claim 8, Singal teaches the method according to claim 2, Singal further teaches wherein the control elements on the screen under the first posture are pre-divided into the at least one control group by dividing control elements with the same attributes and located in a preset area into the same control group according to position information and attribute information of each control element on the screen under the first posture (Fig. 4 control groups 402-408. For example, group 402 includes tiles 1-13).
As to dependent claim 13, Singal teaches the method according to claim 5, Singal does not appear to expressly teach wherein adjusting the target control group according to the adjustment approach for the target control group, comprises: adjusting the parent control element with an adjustment of the child control element by setting that the first specified edge spacing and/or the second specified edge spacing remains unchanged.
Engel teaches wherein adjusting the target control group according to the adjustment approach for the target control group, comprises: adjusting the parent control element with an adjustment of the child control element by setting that the first specified edge spacing and/or the second specified edge spacing remains unchanged (Fig. 5A and 5B the specified edge spacing remains unchanged).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to Singal to comprise wherein adjusting the target control group according to the adjustment approach for the target control group, comprises: adjusting the parent control element with an adjustment of the child control element by setting that the first specified edge spacing and/or the second specified edge spacing remains unchanged. One would have motivated to make such a combination to improve efficiency in user interaction with the user interfaces.
Claims 14-20 are substantially the same as claims 2-8 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singal et al in view of Engel et al. and further in view of Thayer (US 20170249287 A1).
As to dependent claim 12, Singal teaches the method according to claim 2, Singal does not appear to expressly teach wherein the parent control element is set as an <HTML> element, and the child control element of the parent control element is set as a <body> or <head> element; or wherein the parent control element is set as the <body> or <head> element, and the child control element of the parent control element is set as a <ul> or <p> element.
Thayer teaches wherein the parent control element is set as an <HTML> element, and the child control element of the parent control element is set as a <body> or <head> element; or wherein the parent control element is set as the <body> or <head> element, and the child control element of the parent control element is set as a <ul> or <p> element (“FIG. 1 depicts an example HTML document that incorporates a hierarchical identifier attribute to indicate relationships among elements. FIG. 1 depicts example HTML code 101 (“code 101”), an element hierarchy analyzer 102, and a web browser 104.” Paragraph 0014).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to Singal to comprise wherein the parent control element is set as an <HTML> element, and the child control element of the parent control element is set as a <body> or <head> element; or wherein the parent control element is set as the <body> or <head> element, and the child control element of the parent control element is set as a <ul> or <p> element. One would have motivated to make such a combination to improve the conversion efficiency of the screen.
Claim 21 is substantially the same as claim 12 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.:
Zielinski et al. US 20070266335 A1 teaches a system and method for providing a standard user interface (UI) across disparate display interfaces is disclosed. The technology initially determines a scaling factor for a UI containing a plurality of elements. The technology also establishes a reflow characteristic of the plurality of elements within the UI.
Dyar et al. US 20160092084 A1 Embodiments are directed to automatic layout organization where various visualizations within a canvas layout can be dynamically rearranged or modified in dimension upon a user specified modification to maximize usability. Some embodiments display a graphical user interface (GUI) including multiple components in a display area, where each component has one or more initial dimensions. In response to an event, embodiments can determine an edge corresponding to the event.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights