DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on February 13, 2026. Claims 1-18 remain pending, claims 19-20 are cancelled, and claims 21-22 are newly added in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on application filed in China on September 28, 2023 has been acknowledged and considered by Examiner. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) that are placed on record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and new claims 21-22 in the Remarks section (pages 9-13) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Foreign Patent Publication WO 2012/044770 A2 by Sirpal et al. (“Sirpal”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0315262 by Surana address the limitations set forth in the amended claims as the new grounds for rejection.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered with respect to 2-18 in the Remarks section (pages 10-12) but they are not persuasive as the claims depend upon the features recited in the amended independent claims.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Patent Publication WO 2012/044770 A2 by Sirpal, for which the machine language translation will be used for the citations below, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0315262 by Surana.
Regarding claim 1, Sirpal teaches a method for desktop displaying, comprising:
determining a target desktop from at least two display desktops (Fig. 7A-7B, desktop 722 or desktop 718, [0158], In embodiments, the desktop 722 is not always at the "bottom" as application windows can be arranged in the window stack below the desktop 722, and the desktop 722 can be brought to the "top" of a stack over other windows during a desktop reveal where the first desktop or second desktop is revealed depending on a state/input as in Abstract and [0006]); and
determining all display windows on the target desktop the all display windows being displayed on the target desktop in a same first display state (Fig. 7A, window stack 760 of desktop 722, [0158], Thus, the first window stack 760 can be arranged in order from a first window 704 to a next window 720 to a last window 724 and finally to a desktop 722, which, in embodiments, is at the "bottom" of the window stack 760), and
the at least two display desktops being either different display desktops of a same screen or display desktops of different screens (Fig. 7A, [0158], These two window stacks 760, 764 may have different numbers of windows/screens arranged in the respective stacks 760, 764.)
However, Sirpal does not teach the first display state including a minimization state in which all the display windows are minimized.
However, in the analogous art of window stacking on multiple displays, Surana teaches meeting applications provide sharing of multiple applications and a selected application in response to application section operation and holding a control key, such as multiple applications in Sirpal’s window stacks (Surana [0013]). There was a display state where all active windows are minimized, the most recent application or the highest position in a sequence remained visible (Surana [0014]). It would have been obvious before the effective date of the invention that the window stacks of Sirpal to have all windows minimized while managing the window stack as taught by Surana. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have minimize the windows when using a meeting application because a substantial privacy risk of sharing more screen than was desired or necessary, increasing the amount of data transmitted, limiting the effectiveness of a unified communication session, and wasting network resources (Surana [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Sirpal of the combination of references further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target desktop from the at least two display desktops includes: determining the target desktop from the at least two display desktops in response to a desktop identification operation corresponding to the target desktop; or determining a target screen from at least two screens; and determining at least one desktop displayed on the target screen as the target desktop ([0006], receiving a first input that represents an instruction to reveal one of a desktop or application on a first screen of the multi-screen device and selecting a first desktop or application to display on the first screen; (ii) receiving a second input that represents an instruction to reveal one of a desktop or application on a second screen of the multi-screen device and selecting a second desktop or application to display on the second screen).
Regarding claim 3, Sirpal of the combination of references further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: triggering an operation of determining the target desktop in response to an operation of a preset key; or acquiring a preset gesture to trigger an operation of determining the target desktop ([0006], receiving a first input that represents an instruction to reveal one of a desktop or application on a first screen of the multi-screen device and selecting a first desktop or application to display on the first screen; (ii) receiving a second input that represents an instruction to reveal one of a desktop or application on a second screen of the multi-screen device and selecting a second desktop or application to display on the second screen where the input was a user gesture input as in [0011]).
Regarding claim 4, Sirpal of the combination of references further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein determining the target desktop from the at least two display desktops includes: determining the target screen based on position information of a cursor pointer; or determining the target screen based on a landing point of a user's gaze; or determining the target screen based on a current application scenario ([0158], In embodiments, the desktop 722 is not always at the "bottom" as application windows can be arranged in the window stack below the desktop 722, and the desktop 722 can be brought to the "top" of a stack over other windows during a desktop reveal where the window stack was the current application scenario).
Regarding claim 5, Sirpal of the combination of references further teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein determining the target screen based on the current application scenario includes: determining all screens of an electronic device and/or display screens external to the electronic device as target screens when the electronic device is determined as being in a non-working state ([0026], The multi-screen application mode can include, but is not limited to, a single screen mode (where the application is displayed on a single screen) or a composite display mode (where the application is displayed on two or more screens) and only one single window stack 764 would be determined while second display was not used); and
determining a screen where a currently running application is located as the target screen when the currently running application is determined as an application of a preset type ([0026]-[0027], A "single-screen application" refers to an application that is capable of single screen mode. Thus, the single-screen application can produce only one window (at a time of a window stack) and may not be capable of different modes or different display dimensions of multiple window panes).
Regarding claim 8, Sirpal of the combination of references further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: displaying display windows in a second display state on the target desktop in response to a triggering operation on all display windows on the target desktop, the second display state being different from the first display state ([0026]-[0027], A "single-screen application" refers to an application that is capable of single screen mode. Thus, the single-screen application can produce only one window (at a time of a window stack) and may not be capable of different modes or different display dimensions of multiple window panes of a composite, multi-screen display).
Regarding claim 10, Sirpal of the combination of references further teaches an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors ([0095], the processor 204 may include multiple processor cores…to run programming code or instructions implementing various functions of the device 100), and a memory containing a computer program that, when being executed, causes the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 1 ([0191], the disclosed methods may be partially implemented in software that can be stored on a storage medium, executed on programmed general- purpose computer with the cooperation of a controller and memory, a special purpose computer, a microprocessor, or the like).
Regarding claim 11, Sirpal in view of Surana renders obvious the claim limitations in consideration of the grounds of rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, Sirpal in view of Surana renders obvious the claim limitations in consideration of the grounds of rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, Sirpal in view of Surana renders obvious the claim limitations in consideration of the grounds of rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 14, Sirpal in view of Surana renders obvious the claim limitations in consideration of the grounds of rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17, Sirpal in view of Surana renders obvious the claim limitations in consideration of the grounds of rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18, Sirpal of the combination of references further teaches an non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing executable instructions that, when being executed, cause at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 1([0191], the disclosed methods may be partially implemented in software that can be stored on a storage medium, executed on programmed general- purpose computer with the cooperation of a controller and memory, a special purpose computer, a microprocessor, or the like).
Regarding claim 21, Sirpal teaches a method for desktop displaying, comprising:
triggering an operation of determining a target desktop from at least two display desktops (Fig. 7A-7B, desktop 722 or desktop 718, [0158], In embodiments, the desktop 722 is not always at the "bottom" as application windows can be arranged in the window stack below the desktop 722, and the desktop 722 can be brought to the "top" of a stack over other windows during a desktop reveal where the first desktop or second desktop is revealed depending on a state/input as in Abstract and [0006]); and
determining all display windows on the target desktop the all display windows being displayed on the target desktop in a same first display state (Fig. 7A, window stack 760 of desktop 722, [0158], Thus, the first window stack 760 can be arranged in order from a first window 704 to a next window 720 to a last window 724 and finally to a desktop 722, which, in embodiments, is at the "bottom" of the window stack 760), and
the at least two display desktops being either different display desktops of a same screen or display desktops of different screens (Fig. 7A, [0158], These two window stacks 760, 764 may have different numbers of windows/screens arranged in the respective stacks 760, 764.)
However, Sirpal does not teach triggering the determining a target desktop in response to an operation of a preset key.
However, in the analogous art of window stacking on multiple displays, Surana teaches meeting applications provide sharing of multiple applications and a selected application in response to application section operation and holding a control key, such as multiple applications in Sirpal’s window stacks (Surana [0013]). There was a display state where all active windows are minimized, the most recent application or the highest position in a sequence remained visible (Surana [0014]). It would have been obvious before the effective date of the invention that the window stacks of Sirpal to have all windows minimized while managing the window stack as taught by Surana. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have minimize the windows when using a meeting application because a substantial privacy risk of sharing more screen than was desired or necessary, increasing the amount of data transmitted, limiting the effectiveness of a unified communication session, and wasting network resources (Surana [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 22, Sirpal teaches a method for desktop displaying, comprising:
determining a target desktop from at least two display desktops (Fig. 7A-7B, desktop 722 or desktop 718, [0158], In embodiments, the desktop 722 is not always at the "bottom" as application windows can be arranged in the window stack below the desktop 722, and the desktop 722 can be brought to the "top" of a stack over other windows during a desktop reveal where the first desktop or second desktop is revealed depending on a state/input as in Abstract and [0006]); and
determining all display windows on the target desktop, the all display windows being displayed on the target desktop in a same first display state (Fig. 7A, window stack 760 of desktop 722, [0158], Thus, the first window stack 760 can be arranged in order from a first window 704 to a next window 720 to a last window 724 and finally to a desktop 722, which, in embodiments, is at the "bottom" of the window stack 760), and
the at least two display desktops being either different display desktops of a same screen or display desktops of different screens (Fig. 7A, [0158], These two window stacks 760, 764 may have different numbers of windows/screens arranged in the respective stacks 760, 764.)
Sirpal does not teach displaying the display windows on the target desktop in a same second display state in response to a triggering operation on all display windows on the target desktop, the second display state being different from the same first display state.
However, in the analogous art of window stacking on multiple displays, Surana teaches meeting applications provide sharing of multiple applications and a selected application in response to application section operation and holding a control key, such as multiple applications in Sirpal’s window stacks (Surana [0013]). There was a display state where all active windows are minimized, the most recent application or the highest position in a sequence remained visible (Surana [0014]). There was another display state where selection of the share application button 219 in FIG. 2 can provide access to a selection menu 320 where a set of selectable applications or application windows can be presented for selection by the first participant for display to one or more second participants (Surana [0025]). It would have been obvious before the effective date of the invention that the window stacks of Sirpal to have all windows minimized while managing the window stack and restored when needed to have been selected as taught by Surana. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have minimize the windows when using a meeting application because a substantial privacy risk of sharing more screen than was desired or necessary, increasing the amount of data transmitted, limiting the effectiveness of a unified communication session, and wasting network resources (Surana [0013]-[0014]).
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Patent Publication WO 2012/044770 A2 by Sirpal in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0315262 A1 by Surana, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0117495 A1 by Sirpal and Reeves et al. (“Reeves.”)
Regarding claim 6, Sirpal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target desktop from the at least two display desktops includes: displaying window of all desktops; determining at least one target desktop in response to at least one window identification selection instruction for the desktops ([0118], The pinch gesture, when received by a touch sensitive display 110, 114 or a gesture capture region 120, 124, can be used…to display an application manager (a "pop-up window" that displays the windows in the stack) where each window has window identifier ID that uniquely identifies the window as in [0164] as well the application manager was the graphical presentation layer for the window environment as in [0134]. A tap, when received by an a touch sensitive display 110, 114 can be used…to reorder windows in a stack in [0117]); and
determining the all display windows on the target desktop, the all display windows being displayed on the target desktop in the first display state, includes: displaying all display windows on the at least one target desktop in the first display state on the target desktop (Fig. 7A, window stack 760 of desktop 722, [0158], Thus, the first window stack 760 can be arranged in order from a first window 704 to a next window 720 to a last window 724 and finally to a desktop 722, which, in embodiments, is at the "bottom" of the window stack 760 where when reordered, the new window would be the first window shown above desktop 722 as in [0162]).
However, Sirpal did not each displaying window logos of all desktops. In the analogous art of application managers for multi-screen displays, Reeves teaches within this window 1008, depictions are shown for all of the other applications and desktops that are running at the time, but are not displayed on the primary or secondary screens. These depictions of each of the applications/desktops are shown by the icons 1010, each icon representing a separate application or desktop. The application manager window or tray 1008 also illustrates each of the other running applications/desktops in their respective order within the window stacks (Reeves Figs. 10A-10B; [0205]-[0206]). It would have been obvious before the effective date of the invention to have modified the application manager of Sirpal to specifically show graphical icons of the windows and desktops as taught by Reeves. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a an arrangement of the application manager that has the most convenient user interface enabling the user to view all the running applications and desktops (Reeves Figs. 10A-10B; [0207]).
Regarding claim 7, Sirpal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target desktop from the at least two display desktops includes: displaying all display desktop from a second screen on a first screen, determining the target desktop on the second screen in response to an operation performed on the first screen for displaying desktop logos on the second screen ([0118], The pinch gesture, when received by a touch sensitive display 110, 114 or a gesture capture region 120, 124, can be used…to display an application manager (a "pop-up window" that displays the windows in the stack) where each window has window identifier ID that uniquely identifies the window as in [0164]. A tap, when received by an a touch sensitive display 110.. can be used…to reorder windows in a stack in [0117] where the window stack 760 was able to have been a composite display of items including those shown on the second display 114 as in [0160] and Fig. 7E); and setting all windows on display desktops on the second screen to the first display state (Fig. 7E, window stack, [0161] In the embodiment shown, the desktop 786 is the lowest display or "brick" in the window stack 760. Thereupon, window 1 782, window 2 782, window 3 768, and window 4 770 are layered where when reordered, the new window would be the first window shown above desktop 786 of window stack as in [0162]),
However, Sirpal did not each displaying window logos of all desktops. In the analogous art of application managers for multi-screen displays, Reeves teaches within this window 1008, depictions are shown for all of the other applications and desktops that are running at the time, but are not displayed on the primary or secondary screens. These depictions of each of the applications/desktops are shown by the icons 1010, each icon representing a separate application or desktop. The application manager window or tray 1008 also illustrates each of the other running applications/desktops in their respective order within the window stacks (Reeves Figs. 10A-10B; [0205]-[0206]). It would have been obvious before the effective date of the invention to have modified the application manager of Sirpal to specifically show graphical icons of the windows and desktops as taught by Reeves. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a an arrangement of the application manager that has the most convenient user interface enabling the user to view all the running applications and desktops (Reeves Figs. 10A-10B; [0207]).
Regarding claim 15, Sirpal in view of Reeves and Surana renders obvious the claim limitations in consideration of the grounds of rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 16, Sirpal in view of Reeves and Surana renders obvious the claim limitations in consideration of the grounds of rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Patent Publication WO 2012/044770 A2 by Sirpal in view of in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0315262 A1 by Surana, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0080939 A1 by Reeves, Sirpal, de Paz et al. (“De Paz.”)
Regarding claim 9, Sirpal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target desktop from the at least two display desktops includes: and determining the all display windows on the target desktop, the all display windows being displayed on the target desktop in the first display state, includes: determining target desktops on all screens to be displayed in the first display state (Fig. 7E, window stack copied on both screens, [0161] In the embodiment shown, the desktop 786 is the lowest display or "brick" in the window stack 760. Thereupon, window 1 782, window 2 782, window 3 768, and window 4 770 are layered where when reordered, the new window would be the first window shown above/below as compared to a target desktop 786 in composite window stack as in [0162] and Fig. 7E).
However, Sirpal does not teach determining the target desktop when an external screen of an electronic device is determined to be in a copy mode. However, De Paz teaches providing a unified desktop of a handheld multi-screen device with a peripheral display (De Paz [0007]). The unified desktop 1300 is formed from a first portion, namely the user interface 1304 of the computer system 1104 and a second portion, namely the user interface 1308 of the device 100. As a unified desktop 1300, the user interface 1304 and 1308 function together to provide parallel displays, exchange windows or other user interface elements, and generally present a cohesive user interface across both the computers system 1104 and the device 100 (De Paz[0217]). The indications 1320 represent windows of applications that are currently open on one of the first portion 1304 of unified desktop 1300 and/or the second portion 1308 of the unified desktop 1300 in an application manager. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to have replicated the application manager for window control between the multi-screen device and an external device in a unified desktop as taught by De Paz (De Paz [0227] and [0218]) . One of ordinary skill would have the motivation to have a unified desktop unifies the PC functionality provided on the additional display with the handheld functionality, such as communication applications (e.g., phone, SMS, MMS) provided on the screen(s) of the handheld device. A user can seamlessly interact with applications, e.g., open, drag, close, receive notifications, on the unified desktop whether the applications are displayed on the screens of the handheld device, or the peripheral display of the larger computing system (De Paz [0007])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication US 2013/0080759 A1 by Reeves et al. teaches the window control with unified display across handheld and peripheral displays.
U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0020082 A1 by Chen et al. teaches the use of eye gaze to determine a working or targeted screen.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHEEN I JAVED whose telephone number is (571)272-0825. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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.
/MAHEEN I JAVED/Examiner, Art Unit 2621
/AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights