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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the feature of “drawing, based on a size of rounded corners of a second window and a content of the second window, the second window on a canvas of the second window when based on determining that non-proportional scaling is required for a first window displayed on a display interface of the electronic device, wherein the second window and the first window are of the same size, and a position of the second window on the display interface is the same as a position of the first window on the display interface” must be shown. Note that the invention is directed to an improvement on the graphical user interface technology. Thus, the drawing needs to show how the invention operates in the graphical user environment to clearly help understand. Furthermore, the drawings need to show how “drawing” on a “canvas”, versus the “displayed on a display interface” is distinguished or shown in the GUI environment. As currently, they appear to be used interchangeably without a clear distinction. Secondly, the first and the second windows supposedly shown to be the same size and shown to have the same position needs to be shown on a drawing to show how the invention operates.
Following the similar rationale, the followed up claimed invention of conditionally hiding the first or the second window while hiding the other needs to be shown to help understand what that means on a GUI environment. The exact claimed limitations: “displaying the second window on the display interface and hiding the first window when after drawing of the second window is completed; and displaying the scaled first window on the display interface and hiding the second window when based on determining that scaling of the first window is completed.”
The above claimed features in the independent claims 1, 9, 10 (and all dependent claims by incorporation) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per independent claims 1, 9, 10, the specification fails to describe how the claimed operation features work.
The specification lacks a clear description to understand the claimed limitation of “drawing, based on a size of rounded corners of a second window and a content of the second window, the second window on a canvas of the second window when based on determining that non-proportional scaling is required for a first window displayed on a display interface of the electronic device, wherein the second window and the first window are of the same size, and a position of the second window on the display interface is the same as a position of the first window on the display interface. “
It appears that the Paragraphs [0075]-[0105] that describe the Figure 9 appear to be the most relevant section regarding the limitations. However, Figure 9 is basically a verbatim copy of the limitations of the independent claims 1, 9 and 10. The corresponding paragraphs lack an explanation of the difference between the “canvas” and “display interface” that appear to be used somewhat interchangeably. The paragraphs also do not explain which windows in the examples represent the first window and which represents the second window. Per the claims, the first and the second windows supposedly must be the same size and shown to have the same position, and the specification does not clearly point out this example in the explanations of the embodiments.
Also, given the pre-requisite of the sizes and positions of the first and second widows per above, the specification does not clearly describe the processing “displaying the second window on the display interface and hiding the first window when after drawing of the second window is completed; and displaying the scaled first window on the display interface and hiding the second window based on determining that scaling of the first window is completed.” In addition, it is not clear what is meant by the process of “hiding”. A common, layman’s notion of hiding may be just being deleted from a display screen, but it is unclear from where (or from what) the window is hidden in the examples used in the specification.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation of “drawing, based on a size of rounded corners of a second window and a content of the second window, the second window on a canvas of the second window” is not clearly explained in the specification. The specification suggests some ways to determine the size of the rounded corners in Paragraph [00903], “the size …may be a fixed size, or may be determined based on the current size of the first window… based on the height of the second window…”, etc. However, specification does not actual show the steps of determining the size of rounded corners and then using the determined size for “drawing … the second window on a canvas” as claimed. Without a clear example of what is being done in the specification, it is impossible to comprehend what is happening in the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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.
Claim 1-10 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.
Per independent claims 1, 9, 10, the limitation of “a position of the second window on the display interface is the same as a position of the first window on the display interface” is indefinite. It is unclear if the two windows occupy the same position, e.g., overlap, or there is one position of each of the windows is same, e.g., a shared corner? Or shared windows reference? a same z-axis position?
Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., USPAT PUB 2014/0033119 A1 in view of Broughton et al., USPAT Pub 2024/0152245 A1.
It should be noted that the rejection is based on the Examiner’s best attempt at understanding the invention that appears to not have clearly been described in the specification (see the above 35 USC 112, first and second rejections).
Per independent claim 1, Kim et al. teaches the window display method, applied to an electronic device, the method comprising: drawing the second window on a canvas of the second window when based on determining that non-proportional scaling is required for a first window displayed on a display interface of the electronic device (see Par 85-100 in describing the drag to resize operations; See Fig 4E non-proportionally scaled from Fig 4A.) ;
wherein the second window and the first window are of the same size, and a position of the second window on the display interface is the same as a position of the first window on the display interface (In Kim et al, the dotted line displayed while being resized (e.g., item 481 in FIG.4D and 498 in Fig. 10C ) represents the “transitional logical” second window. Since both the physical window (e.g., 450 in Fig. 4C) and the logical window start out from the same size and same locations.);
displaying the second window on the display interface and hiding the first window after drawing of the second window is completed (see the dotted window 498 in Fig. 10C; Par 0131, “… the controller 110 may display a previous window size by a guide line 498” shows the drawing of the guideline window is completed, it partially hides the first window under it – at least the portions hidden by the guide lines.); and
displaying the scaled first window on the display interface and hiding the second window when based on determining that scaling of the first window is completed (see, for example, the transition from Fig. 4D to 4E where second window disappears and then only the resized first window is displayed.).
Kim et al. does not disclose that the drawing the second window is based on a size of rounded corners of a second window and a content of the second window. Regarding the missing feature Broughton et al. also teaches the related technology in the windows based graphical user system. In the series of FIG.17’s and Para 0721-0721, Broughton et al. discloses the resizing rounded corner windows using a drag and sliding input (see FIG.17G and 17H). The rounded corner handle (e.g., 1712 in FIG. 17G) is used to resize the windows. Furthermore, Broughton et al. disclose that the resize drawing of the resized window is based on the “size of the rounded orders” (see Para 0796 and 0798).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated the rounded corner windows for the windows of Kim et al., since Broughton et al. taught the advantage of visually recognizing the “resize affordance”(Para 0796) when performing the scaling operation by using the rounded corners graphical user interface.
Per dependent claim 2, Kim et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining that non-proportional scaling is required for the first window when based on a first operation for scaling the first window being detected and the first window enters entering a first region on the display interface (FIG. 4D, 8B, 10C show detecting the scaling type based on the user dragging the window).
Per dependent claim 5, Kim et al. discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the first operation is a slide operation, and after the displaying the second window on the display interface, the method further comprises: moving, in response to the slide operation, the second window according to a slide position of the slide operation on the display interface (FIG.4D shows clicking 490 and sliding it to a direction of a desired resizing).
Per dependent claim 7, Kim method according to claim 1, wherein the size of the rounded corners of the second window is determined according to a current size of the first window. As explained with respect to claim 1, both the first and second windows are of the same size, so the determination is based on each other. Broughton et al. explained the use of the rounded corner windows as explained with respect to claim 1, thus, the sizes of the rounded corners being determined with respect to each other windows since they have to be the same.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., USPAT PUB 2014/0033119 A1 in view of Broughton et al., USPAT Pub 2024/0152245 A1 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chen et al., USPAT PGPub 2024/0147061 A1.
Per dependent claim 8, Kim et al. in view Broughton et al. disclosed the invention of claim 1, the rejection incorporated herein, but does not disclose that the content of the second window is determined according to a Gaussian blur effect of a content of the first window. In. Kim et al., the content of the second window is displayed as the dotted guideline with a transparent content. Regarding the difference, Chen et al. teaches an image processing and displaying system and pointed out that Gaussian blur is a well-known technique to make the image transition smooth (Para 0032). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Chen et al.’s teaching into the Kim et al. and Broughton et al.’s invention, since it would have provided another way for Kim et al. to implement a smooth transitioning while displaying the second window while being dragged and resized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20260115103-A1 2026-04-30 Ali; Nabeel Rustam A61J7/0418 1/1
US-20040261037-A1 2004-12-23 Ording, Bas G06F3/0481 715/788
US-10580149-B1 2020-03-03 Lakshminarayanan; Guhan G06F3/0412 1/1
US-20240147061-A1 2024-05-02 CHEN; Zhichao H04N23/667 1/1
US-20240152245-A1 2024-05-09 Broughton; Lee S. G06F3/013 1/1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-6PM. 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, a supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on (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.
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights