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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11-12 and 14-27 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 08/23/2024.
CONTINUING DATA: This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2023/091250 04/27/2023
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS: CHINA 202210774306.7 07/01/2022
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 and 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 11, 12 and 20 recite: “display a first application window…in a form of a floating window; in response to the user clicking the first application icon corresponding to the floating ball on the desktop, display a window of the first application icon in full screen;” There is no mention in the original specification of disclosing a first application window as a floating window, minimizing the first application window as a floating ball, selecting the floating ball and displaying the first application window in full screen. The specification [0131]-[0134] discloses that displaying the first application window as a floating window or as full screen is depended on the types of the background, instead of seemly randomly switching between a floating window mode and a full screen mode. Thus, the limitation includes subject matter that was not described in the original specification.
Claim 18 and 26 recite: “in response to an operation on an interface of a setting application, set a list of applications allowable to be covered;” The limitations “setting application” and “covered” appeared to be machine translation and does not make grammatical sense, further clarification is required.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original specification that describes the feature of the present invention, then applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this office action.
Claims 14-19 and 21-27 are rejected similarly because they are depended on claims 11 and 20.
Claims 19 and 26 are rejected similarly because they are depended on claims 18 and 26.
Applicant may obviate this rejection by canceling the claims.
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 11, 12 and 20 recite the limitation "the sidebar". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims because no other sidebar was disclosed previously.
Claims 11, 12 and 20 recite multiple instances of "a floating window". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims because it is not clear if multiple mentions of “a floating window” are the same.
Claims 11, 12 and 20 recite the limitations “a first application window” and “a window of the first application” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims because it is not clear if they are the same.
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 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2022/0318036 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0362294 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 11, Zhang discloses an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors (fig.1, “Processor”) and configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to be configured to: display a first application window corresponding to a first application icon in a form of a floating window (fig.8A, fig.8B; the first application is displayed as a floating window);
in response to an operation of a user of minimizing the first application window, display the first application window in a form of a floating ball on a desktop; in response to the user clicking the first application icon corresponding to the floating ball on the desktop, display a window of the first application icon in full screen (fig.4, fig.5B; [0255], [0258]; the first application is displayable in full screen mode when selected from a minimized state from a home screen);
when a second application window is already running in full screen on an interface, in response to the user clicking the first application icon…, open a third application window corresponding to the first application icon in the form of a floating window; in response to an operation of the user of minimizing the third application window, display the third application window in the form of a floating ball on the second application window; and in response to the user clicking the floating ball displayed on the second application window, open the application corresponding to the first application icon in the form of a floating window (fig.8A, fig.8B; [0292]-[0296]; the first application is running as a floating window when there is a full screen second application in the background). Zhang does not expressly disclose …in the sidebar…
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses a sidebar (fig.4(a); a dock bar is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Zhang and Zhou before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the screen display interface taught by Zhang to include a side bar taught by Zhou with the motivation being to enhance usability by providing a shortcut menu on a side of the display.
As to INDEPENDENT claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 11 above.
As to INDEPENDENT claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights