DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 09/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202410425047.6, filed on 04/09/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024 and 05/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Notes
The numbering of claims (i.e. dependent claims 9 and 10 depending on claim 2 and dependent claim 11 depending on claim 3) is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126. The presented claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n) and 37 CFR 1.75(g): “(t)he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer…”
Claim Interpretations
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. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“in response to” + {contingent limitation} [e.g. line 2 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 8] = Even though the prior art rejection included below does not depend on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on the “in response to” condition being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true (like, in the case of independent claim 1, any scenario wherein an electronic device does not enter a hover mode) would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
“hover mode” and “non-hover mode” [all claims] = Applicant is respectfully reminded that during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.1 Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.2 As such, Applicant is advised that a “hover mode” as currently claimed casts a wide net over the prior art to include other apparently un-intended forms of hovering, including presenting a finger or stylus near an electronic device, among others.
“target child View,” “DecorView”, and “Surface View” [claims 4, 6, 11, 12, 16, & 18] = Applicant is respectfully reminded that during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.3 Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.4 Despite this last fact, the Office evaluated the entirety of the Specification to see if any of these capitalized limitations were explicitly redefined in a specific way such that they were attributed specific functionality, but no examples of this were found. As such, for purposes of prior art analysis, the Office will interpret these capitalized names as Applicant-chosen non-functional labels, and will not attribute any extra functionality to the mere usage of said capitalized labels.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected to because it is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 11, and 13-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3:
Lines 4-5 recite “keeping a size of the first display content same as the adjusted size” where “keeping a size of the first display content the same as the adjusted size” was apparently intended.
Claim 5:
Line 6 improperly reintroduces the limitation “coordinates” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of the same claim).
Claim 13:
Line 5 improperly reintroduces the limitation “an electronic device” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 1 of the same claim).
Claim 15:
Lines 2-3 recite “keep a size of the first display content same as the adjusted size” where “keep a size of the first display content the same as the adjusted size” was apparently intended.
Claim 17:
Line 4 improperly reintroduces the limitation “coordinates” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 2 of the same claim).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0152862 (hereinafter “Choi”).
As to claims 1, 13, and 20, Choi shows a display method [¶ 02], an electronic device [¶ 02], and a concomitant non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [¶¶ 229-230], comprising:
in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen [in response to an electronic device entering a hover/“flex” mode (wherein a foldable device is partially folded, as illustrated in item 301 of fig. 3, item 922 of fig. 9B, and/or item 942 of fig. 9C), displaying a first display content (like a video) of a target application (a video playback application (¶ 176) in a first display region of a screen (like where the video execution screen is displayed in item 922 of fig. 9B and/or item 942 of fig. 9C), and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen (like where the video playback controls are displayed in item 922 of fig. 9B and/or item 942 of fig. 9C) | ¶¶ 183 & 186];
wherein, in the hover mode and a non-hover mode, an application window of the target application has a same size, the first display content has different sizes and positions, and the second display content has different sizes and positions [in the hover/flex mode and a non-hover/unfolded mode, an overall application window of the target application (the parent window containing both the video and the controls for said video) has a same size, the first display content/video has different sizes and positions, and the second display content/controls has different sizes and positions (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 183 & 186)].
As to dependent claims 2 and 14, Choi further shows:
wherein, in response to the electronic device entering the hover mode, displaying the first display content of the target application in the first display region of the screen, and displaying the second display content of the target application in the second display region of the screen, comprises: in response to the electronic device entering the hover mode, acquiring first configuration information, wherein the first configuration information is configured to indicate a first target size of the second display content in the hover mode; and displaying, based on the first configuration information, the first display content in the first display region, and displaying the second display content in the second display region [in response to the electronic device entering the hover/flex mode, first configuration information is acquired to indicate a first target size of the second display content in the hover mode; and displaying, based on the first configuration information, the first display content in the first display region, and displaying the second display content in the second display region (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
As to dependent claims 3 and 15, Choi further shows:
wherein displaying, based on the first configuration information, the first display content in the first display region, and displaying the second display content in the second display region, comprises: adjusting a size of the second display content to the first target size, and keeping a size of the first display content same as the adjusted size of the second display content [both the first content and the second content are adjusted to the same size (half of the overall screen) | figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186]; and
adjusting a position of the first display content to the first display region, and adjusting a position of the second display content to the second display region [a position of the first display content is adjusted to the first display region and a position of the second display content is adjusted to the second display region (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
As to dependent claims 4 and 16, Choi further shows:
wherein the second display content comprises a target child View of a DecorView [the second display content comprises a view to which any ordinarily-skilled artisan could attribute the non-functional label/nickname “target child View of a DecorView” (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)]; and
wherein adjusting the size of the second display content to the first target size, comprises: adjusting a height of the target child View based on the first target size [the height of the second display content may be adjusted based on the first target size (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
As to dependent claims 5 and 17, Choi further shows:
wherein adjusting the position of the first display content to the first display region and adjusting the position of the second display content to the second display region, comprises: adjusting coordinates of the second display content and moving the second display content from the first display region to the second display region [coordinates of the second display content may be adjusted and at least a portion of the second display content may be moved (at least when transitioning from the non-hover/unfolded mode to the hover/flex mode) from the first display region to the second display region (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)]; and
adjusting coordinates of a layer corresponding to the first display content and moving the first display content from the second display region to the first display region [coordinates of a layer corresponding to the first display content/video may be adjusted and at least a portion of the first display content may be moved (at least when transitioning from the non-hover/unfolded mode to the hover/flex mode) from the second display region to the first display region (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
As to dependent claims 6 and 18, Choi further shows:
wherein the first display content comprises a Surface View control; and the second display content comprises an operation control of the target application [the first display content/video comprises a control to which any ordinarily-skilled artisan could attribute the non-functional label/nickname “Surface View control” and the second display content comprises an operation/playback control of the target application (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
As to dependent claims 7 and 19, Choi further shows:
displaying a third display content of an operating system in the first display region, and/or displaying a fourth display content of the operating system in the second display region; wherein, in the hover mode and the non-hover mode, the third display content has a same size and a same position, and the fourth display content has a same size and a same position [a third and/or fourth display content of an operating system in the any one of the display regions, and either one of these third/fourth contents may also have a same size and a same position in both the hover/flex mode and the non-hover/unfolded mode (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 31 & 181-186)].
As to dependent claim 8, Choi further shows:
in response to the electronic device entering the non-hover mode, acquiring second configuration information, wherein the second configuration information is configured to indicate a second target size of the second display content in the non-hover mode [second configuration information configured to indicate a second target size of the second display content in the non-hover/unfolded mode may be acquired in response to the electronic device entering the non-hover/unfolded mode (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)]; and
displaying, based on the second configuration information, the first display content and the second display content in full screen [the first display content and the second display content may be displayed in full screen based on the second configuration information (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
As to dependent claim 9, Choi further shows:
wherein the first target size is preset to be half of a size of the second display content in the non-hover mode [the first target size is preset to be half of a size of the second display content in the non-hover/unfolded mode (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
As to dependent claim 10, Choi further shows:
wherein acquiring the first configuration information comprises: receiving, by the target application, the first configuration information from an operating system, wherein the first configuration information is generated by the operating system in response to detecting that the electronic device enters the hover mode [the target application may receive the first configuration information from an operating system that generates it in response to detecting that the electronic device enters the hover/flex mode (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 31 & 181-186)].
As to dependent claim 11, Choi further shows:
wherein a target child View of a Decor View is configured to display the second display content, and a Surface View layer is configured to display the first display content [any view subjectively/non-functionally labeled as “a target child View of a Decor View” may be configured to display the second display content, and any layer subjectively/non-functionally labeled as a “Surface View layer” may be configured to display the first display content (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)]; and
wherein adjusting the position of the second display content to the second display region and adjusting the position of the first display content to the first display region, comprises: moving the target child View from the first display region to the second display region; and moving the Surface View layer from the second display region to the first display region [the view configured to display the second display content may be moved (at least when transitioning from the non-hover/unfolded mode to the hover/flex mode) from the first display region to the second display region, and the layer configured to display the first display content may be moved (at least when transitioning from the non-hover/unfolded mode to the hover/flex mode) from the second display region to the first display region (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
As to dependent claim 12, Choi further shows:
wherein, before adjusting the position of the second display content, the target child View is in the first display region by default [the view configured to display the second display content may be in the first display region by default before transitioning from the non-hover/unfolded mode to the hover/flex mode and thus adjusting the position of the second display content (figs. 9A-9C; ¶¶ 181-186)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
Li; Chundong
US 20250045076 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
JUNG; Chansung
US 20150153778 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
LEE; Younsun et al.
US 20250306742 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
LEE; Doyoung et al.
US 20160098063 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
LEE; Gisoo et al.
US 20250181205 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
LIM; Chaehoon et al.
US 20240005828 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
Zhong; Wei et al.
US 20230281025 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
KIM; Taekyoung et al.
US 20220121357 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
LEE; Seungeun et al.
US 20230185507 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
Gao; Zhang et al.
US 20230359447 A1
“in response to an electronic device entering a hover mode, displaying a first display content of a target application in a first display region of a screen, and displaying a second display content of the target application in a second display region of the screen”
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5pm).
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
1 In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
2 In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
3 In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
4 In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Prosecution Insights