DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 08/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 were amended. Claims 1-6 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 recite “a program of one or more applications” instead of “a program of each of one or more applications.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2022/0129037) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2025/0060923).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches/suggests: An information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory which stores a program of [each of] one or more applications (Ito Fig. 6: RAM 12); and
a processor (Ito fig. 6: control unit 18) which executes the program of each of the one or more applications stored in the memory to perform control to display windows of the one or more applications in a screen area of a display (Ito [0042] “the information processing device 10 adapts a window of an application (hereinafter simply called an “app”) running in the one-screen mode to a window of the first display area DA1 … in such a state as to maintain a layer relationship (the stacking order of windows) in the one-screen mode”),
wherein the processor performs display change processing to change arrangement of the windows inside the screen area using a first display switching function selected from among display switching functions to switch position and size of each of the windows inside the screen area according to predetermined rules (Ito [0040] “when the information processing device 10 makes a transition from a display of the one-screen structure to a display of the two-screen structure, an active window is displayed on a primary screen of the two screens, and a thumbnail image(s) of an inactive window(s) is displayed on a secondary screen” [0052] “FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating specific examples of various display modes of the information processing device 10”),
Ito is silent regarding:
wherein the position and the size of the windows associated with each display switching function are held in an associated independent holding unit of the memory,
display state holding processing to hold, for each display switching function in the associated independent holding unit, the position and the size of the windows before being changed by the display change processing, and
display restoration processing in which, upon restoration of at least either of the position and the size of one of the windows changed by the display change processing using the first display switching function, at least either of the position and the size of the windows is collectively restored based on the position and the size of the windows held for the first display switching function in the associated independent holding unit when performing the display change processing.
Nakamura, however, teaches/suggests:
wherein the position and the size of the windows associated with each display switching function are held in an associated independent holding unit of the memory (Nakamura [0108] “the controller 12 may store the size and position of the window in the storage 14 before minimizing the window in the power saving processing … the controller 12 restores all of the windows having been minimized in the power saving processing”),
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the windows of Ito such that their size and position are stored as taught/suggested by Nakamura to be restored. As such, Ito as modified by Nakamura teaches/suggests:
display state holding processing to hold, for each display switching function in the associated independent holding unit, the position and the size of the windows before being changed by the display change processing (Ito [0062] “the two-screen mode and the one-screen mode are switched, for example, with a user's operation” Nakamura [0108] “the controller 12 may store the size and position of the window in the storage 14 before minimizing the window in the power saving processing … the controller 12 restores all of the windows having been minimized in the power saving processing”), and
display restoration processing in which, upon restoration of at least either of the position and the size of one of the windows changed by the display change processing using the first display switching function, at least either of the position and the size of the windows is collectively restored based on the position and the size of the windows held for the first display switching function in the associated independent holding unit when performing the display change processing (Ito [0062] “the two-screen mode and the one-screen mode are switched, for example, with a user's operation” Nakamura [0108] “the controller 12 restores all of the windows having been minimized in the power saving processing”).
Claim 6 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2022/0129037) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2025/0060923) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumakawa et al. (US 2014/0143718).
Regarding claim 2, Ito as modified by Nakamura teaches/suggests: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display switching functions include:
the first display switching function by which, when rearranging the windows being arranged in the screen area, switching whether to rearrange the windows by setting the screen area as one display area or to rearrange the windows by splitting the screen area into display areas is made (Ito [0054] “Display mode (b) is a display mode when the first chassis 101 and the second chassis 102 are in the bent state (Bent form) as the usage form, and the display mode is the two-screen mode” [0061]-[0062] “display mode (d) is in the bent state (Bent form) in which the first chassis 101 and the second chassis 102 are bent, and the orientation of the information processing device 10 is the same but different in that the display mode is the one-screen … the information processing device 10 switches from the display mode (b) to the display mode (d) (Switch by UI)”),
a second display switching function by which, when rearranging the windows being arranged in the screen area, switching whether to rearrange the windows by setting the entire screen area as a display area or to rearrange the windows by setting part of the screen area as the display area is made (Ito [0069] “the information processing device 10 automatically switches from the display mode (e′) to display mode (c-2′) (Switch by Dock). The display mode (c-2′) differs from the display mode (c-2) only in the open angle θ between the first chassis 101 and the second chassis 102” [0059] “display mode (c-2) is a display mode in the bent state (Bent form) and the two-screen mode, and the orientation of the information processing device is the same but different in that an external physical keyboard is connected”),
Ito as modified by Nakamura does not teach/suggest:
a third display switching function to switch on which layout predetermined in the screen area a window selected from among the windows being arranged in the screen area is rearranged.
Kumakawa, however, teaches/suggests:
a third display switching function to switch on which layout predetermined in the screen area a window selected from among the windows being arranged in the screen area is rearranged (Kumakawa [0043] “three areas in which windows are to be arranged have been defined in each region on the desktop screen” [0078] “When an option button has been operated … readjusts areas in which the windows are to be arranged”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the windows of Ito as modified by Nakamura to be rearranged as taught/suggested by Kumakawa as an option.
Regarding claim 3, Ito as modified by Nakamura and Kumakawa teaches/suggests: The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a bendable display as the display (Ito [0003] “a flexible display (display unit) such as an organic EL display is provided over a first chassis and a second chassis in a manner to be bendable”), wherein the first display switching function is a function capable of switching whether to rearrange the windows by setting the screen area as one display area or to rearrange the windows by splitting the screen area into the plurality of display areas depending on whether the display is in a bent state or not (Ito [0054] “Display mode (b) is a display mode when the first chassis 101 and the second chassis 102 are in the bent state (Bent form) as the usage form, and the display mode is the two-screen mode” [0061]-[0062] “display mode (d) is in the bent state (Bent form) in which the first chassis 101 and the second chassis 102 are bent, and the orientation of the information processing device 10 is the same but different in that the display mode is the one-screen … the information processing device 10 switches from the display mode (b) to the display mode (d) (Switch by UI)”).
Regarding claim 4, Ito as modified by Nakamura and Kumakawa teaches/suggests: The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the second display switching function is a function capable of switching whether to rearrange the windows by setting the entire screen area as a display area or to rearrange the windows by setting, as a display area, part of the screen area except for an area on which a physical keyboard is mounted using, as a trigger, whether or not the physical keyboard is mounted on the area as part of the screen area (Ito [0069] “the information processing device 10 automatically switches from the display mode (e′) to display mode (c-2′) (Switch by Dock). The display mode (c-2′) differs from the display mode (c-2) only in the open angle θ between the first chassis 101 and the second chassis 102” [0059] “display mode (c-2) is a display mode in the bent state (Bent form) and the two-screen mode, and the orientation of the information processing device is the same but different in that an external physical keyboard is connected”).
Regarding claim 5, Ito as modified by Nakamura and Kumakawa teaches/suggests: The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the third display switching function is a function capable of switching on which layout predetermined in the screen area the window being arranged in the screen area is rearranged (Kumakawa [0043] “three areas in which windows are to be arranged have been defined in each region on the desktop screen” [0078] “When an option button has been operated … readjusts areas in which the windows are to be arranged”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0137763 – restore window position and size
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
