DETAILED ACTION
A. This action is in response to the following communications: Transmittal of New Application filed 11/05/2024.
B. Claims 1-20 remains pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more. The claim(s) 1 and 10 recite(s) “displaying first interface in a first window; displaying a target interface in a second window in response to user input”, grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic method for a display and generic electronic devices does not take the claim out of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing and updating user interface information in a computer environment. The claimed “method” and “electronic device” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools perform an existing display update process. Even considered in combination, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer with storage devices recited at a high level of generality is not a practical application of the abstract idea.The limitation wherein second window and first window belong to first task stack and second window is same as or different than first window on a generic user interface executed by a generic computer, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “in response to receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually organizing data.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to the significantly more than the judicial exception because as noted previously, the method and the electronic devices individually and in combination merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of updating user interface in a computer environment for human organization. The same applies here. (MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is ineligible.
Claims 2-10 and 11-20 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown, Derrick (US Pub. 2021/0232280 A1), herein referred to as “Brown”.
As for claims 1 and 11, Brown teaches. A content display method, applied to an electronic device, the method comprising:
displaying, by the electronic device, a first interface in a first window (par. 44, fig. 3, depicts the user interface that shows a relationship between display region 122, virtual locations 123 and spots and blocks, wherein each spot such as spot 302A Each of the spots in the display region 122 can be used to display one content object. Since the spots have different sizes, the content objects to be presented in these spots can have different sizes; such that a spot can be a window of an interface from an application as discussed in par. 14 For example, if the user's past transactions involve frequent visits to a website, content objects associated with that website can be selected for one or more of the virtual locations; ); and
displaying a target interface in a second window in response to an operation of a user on the first interface, wherein the second window and the first window belong to a first task stack of a plurality of task stacks, and the second window is the same as or different from the first window (par. 44 – 45 the content selection portal 104 selects the set of content objects from the content objects 126 stored in the content data store 128 and based on content priority for these content objects 126. As discussed above with respect to FIG. 1, the content priority for a content object 138 can be determined based on the historical behavior of the user 140, such as the past transactions performed by the user 140. Par. 21 The interactions can include users hovering the mouse over the content objects in the user interface 116, the users clicking on the content objects, or the users initiating transactions through the content objects in the user interface 116. The transactions may include acquiring a product or a service, visiting other graphical interfaces or posting content, such as texts, images or videos, to graphical interfaces provided by another computing environment.)
PNG
media_image1.png
504
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claims 2 and 12, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 1, wherein
when the electronic device is in a state in which a preset display mode is enabled, the second window is different from the first window (par. 53 If the current virtual location 124 is the first virtual location 124 that is being processed, the dynamic content placement engine 110 records the content objects that are selected for the current virtual location 124. If the current virtual location 124 is not the first virtual location 124 in the ordered list of virtual locations 124, the dynamic content placement engine 110 can determine if there is any unassigned content object from previously processed virtual locations 124. If so, the unassigned content object is added to the set of content objects 126 of the current virtual location 124.); and
when the electronic device is in a state in which the preset display mode is disabled, the second window is the same as the first window (par. 52 As such, the same content object could be included in more than one set of content objects 126. If the sets of content objects 126 are displayed in the display region 122, one content object might be displayed multiple times in different blocks).
As for claims 3 and 13, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 2, wherein a running mode of the target interface is a single-instance mode, and the plurality of task stacks and the target interface have a same preset parameter (par. 54 a preset “large content object” and preset “small content object”; At block 408, the process 400 involves determining allocation for the set of content objects 126. For example, the dynamic content placement engine 110 can determine the available virtual location layouts of spots for the current virtual location 124 and the sizes of the content objects for the virtual locations 124. Based on these types of information, the dynamic content placement engine 110 determines a virtual location layout of spots that can fit the content objects to the spots of the virtual location).
As for claims 4 and 14, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 3, wherein the displaying the target interface in the second window comprises:
searching the plurality of task stacks in response to the operation on the first interface; and when finding that a second task stack comprises the target interface: deleting the target interface from the second task stack; and
creating the target interface in the first task stack, wherein the second task stack is a task stack in the plurality of task stacks and is different from the first task stack (par. 52 searching content objects displayed in virtual location to find and delete content).
As for claims 5 and 15, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 4, wherein the deleting the target interface from the second task stack comprises:
when a third window in the second task stack comprises only the target interface, closing the third window (par. 56 During the rendering of the user interface 116 at the online platform 114, the placeholder content objects are not rendered. As a result, only the large content object assigned to the top-left block is displayed taking space of all the blocks in the spot. In scenarios where the content objects 126 for the virtual locations 124 are all assigned to a single-block spot, the dynamic content placement engine 110 does not need to generate the placeholder content objects).
As for claims 6 and 16, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 4, further comprising: when a second interface covering the target interface further exists in a third window in the second task stack, simultaneously deleting the target interface and the second interface (par. 52 finding duplicate content objects and deleting/removed blocks).
As for claims 7 and 17, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 5, wherein the third window is displayed in a floating window or is run in a minimization manner (par. 24 determines if display region is not rendered or in a minimized state without using the language minimized but discusses similar functionality; In some examples, the content placement system 102 is also configured to examine the accuracy of the channel location value. The content placement system 102 can test the user interface 116 containing the display region 122 to determine that the display region 122 is indeed presented in the channel (e.g., the specific webpage of the online website or the specific interface of the mobile application) as indicated by the channel-location value. If the content placement system 102 determines that the channel-location value of the display region 122 is inaccurate, the content placement system 102 can correct the channel-location value before determining the content and content placement for the display region 122).
As for claims 8 and 18, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 3, wherein the displaying the target interface in the second window comprises:
searching the plurality of task stacks in response to the operation on the first interface; and when the target interface does not exist in the plurality of task stacks, creating the target interface in the first task stack (par. 29 content selection portal searching for content to display in virtual locations at spot as defined in spatial blocks).
As for claims 9 and 19, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 3, wherein the displaying the target interface in the second window comprises:
searching the plurality of task stacks in response to the operation on the first interface; and when the first task stack comprises the target interface, deleting a third interface that covers the target interface (par. 52-53 removing a content objects that were found during the search step from the content selection portal).
As for claims 10 and 20, Brown teaches. The method according to claim 2, wherein, when a running mode of the target interface is a multi-instance mode, the target interface is created in the first task stack (par. 45 a target interface is rendered based upon priority, wherein priority is determined based upon stored user historical data).
(Note :) 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)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Application Sharing In A Frame
Document ID
US 6570590 B1
Date Published
2003-05-27
Abstract
User interface for displaying and interacting with images corresponding to applications shared over a computer network in a data conference is described. The described interface provides a user with greater control over the use of a desktop by providing controls for moving and sizing images, including fake windows, corresponding to shared applications by displaying such windows in a frame. The frame is the entity that is manipulated by a user with familiar graphical symbols, or even custom designs, thus avoiding potential complexity in managing control over the images of the shared applications. This user interface facilitates frames that may optionally be semi-transparent or transparent in order to allow a user to keep track of icons and windows covered by the frame. Frames are also useful in reducing network traffic by providing a method for detecting the level of interest of a user in a shared application. Thus, they can be used to modulate the frequency of updating images of shared applications to reflect the need for changes determined by whether the frame is in focus or even closed.
System And Method For Managing Software Applications In A Graphical User Interface
Document ID
US 20040066414 A1
Date Published
2004-04-08
Abstract
A system and method for managing software application windows in a graphical user interface having a desktop and taskbar display area are provided. Each instantiated program is represented as one or more graphical windows in the desktop and as a control tile in the taskbar. Control tiles are grouped into control tile groups that facilitate organization and single access control. Project control tile groups allow the grouping of multiple software applications. Additionally, minimized control tile group layout and state may be preserved and previewed prior to being restored.
Inquires
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE at telephone number (571)270-1056.
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
213
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
/NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights