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
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/902,386 filed on 09/30/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 and 06/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2-8, 10, 12-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boblett et al., (“Boblett,” US 2014/0093051), published on April 03, 2014.
Regarding claim 1, Boblett discloses a method of synchronizing a display of an application on multiple screens of a vehicle, the method comprising:
displaying, on a first screen, a first graphical user interface (GUI) including multiple regions, a first region including multiple graphical representations, each graphical representation representing a respective application through which a user can interact with the respective application (pars. 0036-0038; Fig. 2; a screen 200, the task bars 201 and 202, which are known as a first region, include application icons);
detecting a user input on a selected graphical representation of the multiple graphical representations on the first GUI (pars. 0039-0040; Figs. 2-3; a user can select any icon application on task bar 201; for example, a phone icon 213 is selected by user); and
in response to the detecting the user input, launching, on a second screen different from the first screen, the application corresponding to the selected graphical representation, the application being displayed on a second GUI of the second screen while displaying the graphical representation of the application on the first screen (pars. 0039; Figs. 4-5 show a graphical user interface with three possible launch windows).
Regarding claim 3, Boblett discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising:
detecting a second gesture on one of selector system icons representing the graphical representations (par. 0040; Figs. 2-3 and 6-7; “Next, the user selects the window in which to launch the selected application. In order to select the launch window by the user, while still selecting the icon, moves the icon to the desired window in the visual representation (i.e., the visual cue described above.”); and
in response to the detecting the second gesture, launching the application corresponding to one of the graphical representations in a second region of the first GUI (pars. 0039; Figs. 4 and 5; Fig. 4 shows three possible launch windows 401-403 representing zones 405-407, respectively, and also see par. 0040, Fig. 6; a mini- window 303).
Regarding claim 4, Boblett discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: detecting the second gesture on the second region of the first GUI; and in response to detecting the second gesture, launching the application corresponding to the selected graphical representation of the graphical representations on the second screen (pars. 0039-0040; Figs. 4, 5; the launch windows 405-407 or launch windows 505-508).
Regarding claim 5, Boblett discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the second gesture includes at least one of: a single tap, a double tap, or a swipe (par. 0040; Fig. 2-3; the user touch/tap the icon application to be launched).
Regarding claim 6, Boblett discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each graphical representation includes action GUI elements whose selection by a user causes performance of one or more functions associated with the application (pas. 0039 ; Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Boblett discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: in response to detecting a second user input corresponding to a request to perform a function associated with the application (par. 0044; Fig. 2); performing the function associated with the application, and displaying, on the second screen, an output resulting from performance of the function (pars. 0039-0040; Figs. 4, 5; the launch windows 405-407 or launch windows 505-508).
Regarding claim 8, Boblett discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least a subset of the multiple graphical representations represents frequently used applications (par. 0036; Fig. 2; the applications are frequently accessed are displayed on the task bar 201).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to system associated with the method claimed in claim 1; Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 12-13; claims 12-13 are directed to system associated with the method claimed in claims 3-4 respectively; Claims 12-13 are similar in scope to claims 3-4 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to system associated with the method claimed in claim 5; Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15; claim 15 is directed to system associated with the method claimed in claim 7; Claim 15 are similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16; claim 15 is directed to system associated with the method claimed in claim 6; Claim 16 are similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 17-18, claims 17-18 are directed to system associated with the method claimed in claims 8-9 respectively; Claim 17-18 are similar in scope to claims 8-9, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the method claimed in claim 1; Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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 2, 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boblett et al., (“Boblett,” US 2014/0093051), in view of Koh et al., (“Koh,” US 2024/0223888) filed on December 29, 2022.
Regarding claim 2, Boblett discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting the user input on the selected graphical representation of the multiple graphical representations (pars. 0036-0038; Fig. 2; a screen 200, the task bars 201 and 202, which are known as a first region, include application icons).
Boblett discloses all limitations above, but does not explicitly disclose detecting a representations.
However, Koh discloses a method for detecting a swipe input, wherein detecting a swipe gesture made on the first screen in a first direction on one of the multiple graphical representations (Koh: pars. 0108-1010; Fig. 13; wherein at least step 1304-1306; and also see pars. 0067, 0079, 0082-0087; Figs. 6-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koh with the method/system of Boblett One would have been motivated to allow a user accesses to one or multiple functionality or multiple graphical user interface by swiping direction.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to system associated with the system claimed in claim 1; Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the system claimed in claim 1; Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boblett et al., (“Boblett,” US 2014/0093051), in view of Smith (US 2020/0081603) published on March 12, 2020.
Regarding claim 9, Boblett discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the first screen and the second screen are juxtaposed in a predefined relative direction.
However, Smith discloses a method for operating a vehicle having a touch screen display, wherein the first screen and the second screen are juxtaposed in a predefined relative direction (Fig.1; the flight displays 22 and touch screen display 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Smith with the method/system of Boblett. One would have been motivated to improve productive and reducing time wasted on task switching.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to system associated with the system claimed in claim 9; Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
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 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968))
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST).
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, William L 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.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights