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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3,are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 2, the step of “a difference between the background color of the first application in the first area and the first color is greater than a first preset threshold” is indefinite and does not make sense, since there is no such thing as a “difference” between two colors. Further, that the difference being measured against a “preset threshold” does not make sense, since it is unclear what is meant by the “difference” and thus, is unclear what this “threshold” is.
Per claim 3, the steps of “determining whether a first grayscale corresponding to the first color and a second grayscale corresponding to the second color are greater than a second preset threshold” and “when the first grayscale or the second grayscale is greater than the second preset threshold,”are indefinite, since it is unclear how one grayscale is “greater” than another greyscale, and thus, it is also unclear what this “threshold” is.
Per claim 5, which is dependent on claim 1, the limitation “wherein the first application and the second application are a same application,” makes the claim 5 as a whole indefinite.
Claim 1 requires a “first application” and a “second application” which implies two different applications which is in-line with the description in the specification for Fig. 6(a) in paragraph [0118]. Claim 5 now requires that the first and second application are the “same” application. It is unclear how the first and second application can be the “same” as claimed and this does not appear in-line with the specification. The specification paragraph [0118-0119] in describing Fig. 6(b) discusses that two different independent interfaces of the same application can be shown. While it is understood how two different interfaces of the same application could be displayed, it is unclear how a first and second application themselves could be the “same” as claimed and in view of the specification.
Per dependent claim 6, the use of the trademarks “Android system, a Windows system, and a Linux system” makes the claim indefinite.
Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an "operating system" product and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 are for apparatus, i.e., a generic purpose digital computer, performing the method of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 14, 15, 17 and 18 are for a computer readable medium comprising the instructions for performing the method of 2, 3, 5, 6, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al., USPA 2015/0074589 A1 in view of "The Color System", <https://m2.material.io/design/color/the-color-system.html#color-theme-creation>, 2018 (hereinafter The Color System).
Per independent claim 1, Pan et al. discloses a display method applied to an electronic device, comprising: in response to a screen splitting operation of a user, splitting a screen of the electronic device into at least two windows comprising a first window and a second window, wherein at least one
application in a first application running in the first window and a second application running in the second window (Para 91 and 92 for launching to dual mode.); and displaying a status bar icon within a range of a first area, and displaying a status bar icon within a range of a second area, wherein the first area is an area for displaying a status bar in the first window, and the second area is an area for displaying a status bar in the second window (Fig.4 shows the split screen dual window mode and 45A and 45B shows the respective status bar icon in the first and the second areas, above the first windows and the second window, respectively.).
However, Pan et al. does not show assigning and displaying color schemes for the windows. Specifically, Pan et al does not show determining a first color based on the first application, and determining a second color based on the second application; and displaying a status bar icon within a range of a first area based on the first color, and displaying a status bar icon within a range of a second area based on the second color,
Regarding the missing features, The Color System article discloses a tutorial on the UI design for the mobile device windows system. In “Color theme creation” Section, The Color System teaches that for each app, the user can customize the “primary and secondary colors, variants of the primary and secondary colors and additional UI colors, such as colors for backgrounds, surfaces..” etc. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated the teaching of The Color System to assign custom colors to the desired apps in Pan et al.’s multi-windows system, since The Color System pointed out the advance of the color customization as it “helps you apply color to your UI in a meaningful way … to represent your brand” (in “Color usage and palettes” Section).
Per the claimed limitation that “the second window uses an immersive status bar.” The term “immersive status bar” is not a common term of art and the specification does not explicitly define the term. It appears that the term is used as an example of FIG.3(a) and 3(b) and in Paragraph 00110. Thus, based on that, the color can be considered to be “immersive” when the “background color of a status bar area is consistent with that of an application, to provide good user experience.” Using this example-based explanation of the term, The Color System discloses the use of the immersive status bar in “Light and dark themes” Section, note the second window is implemented with a dark mode to make the status bar consistent with application windows to be “immersive.” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated the immersive color scheme of The Color System into the Pan et al.’s multi, split-windows system, since The Color System pointed out the advantage of “maintain[ing] visibility of elements and legibility.” (see “Light and dark themes” Section).
Per dependent claim 4, Pan et al. and The Color System discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining the range of the first area and the range of the second area (in FIG.4, 45A, 45B in Pan et al.).
Per dependent claim 6, Pan et al. and The Color system discloses the method according to claim 1, , wherein an operating system of the electronic device is any one of an Android system, a Windows system, and a Linux system (Para 35, “dual-window” and “Android or iOS system” in Pan et al.).
Claims 7, 10 and 12 are for apparatus, i.e., a generic purpose digital computer, performing the method of claims 1, 4, 6, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 13, 16 and 18 are for a computer readable medium comprising the instructions for performing the method of 1, 4, 6, respectively, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al., USPA 2015/0074589 A1 in view of "The Color System", <https://m2.material.io/design/color/the-color-system.html#color-theme-creation>, 2018 (hereinafter The Color System) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cheong et al., USPAT 2018/0039408 A1.
Per dependent claim 5, Pan et al. and The Color System disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the first application and the second application are a two application, and an interface displayed in the second window is generated based on an operation performed by the user on an interface of the first window (see FIG.11, step a and step c in Pan et al.). However, Pan et al. does not explicitly disclose that the first and second applications can be a same application. Regarding this feature, The Color System article, in “Light and dark themes” Section, discloses that a same application can be assigned with multiple color schemes, e.g., a dark and light color modes. Furthermore, Cheong et al. discloses that the split mode windows can be both different applications and also the same applications (Fig. 21B and 21C representing different pages of a same application; Fig. 17F showing different applications on each windows). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to have incorporated the teaching of Cheong et al. and The Color System into Pan et al., since it would have allowed Pan et al.’s split display system the flexibility to display and work on both the same or different applications throughout the two windows.
Claim 11 is for an apparatus, i.e., a generic purpose digital computer, performing the method of claim 5 and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is for a computer readable medium comprising the instructions for performing the method of 5, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
* US-20240103717-A1 2024-03-28 Han; Guohui G06F3/0483 1/1
* US-20230259272-A1 2023-08-17 Xu; Jie G06F3/0481 345/173
* US-20230046708-A1 2023-02-16 Xu; Jie G06F1/1641 1/1
* US-20220413695-A1 2022-12-29 GUAN; Chi G06F3/0488 1/1
* US-20220308753-A1 2022-09-29 Song; Ping G06F3/0481 1/1
* US-20220086798-A1 2022-03-17 ZHANG; Xuya H04W68/005 1/1
* US-9830056-B1 2017-11-28 Keely; Lee Brandon G06F3/0483 1/1
* US-20140237378-A1 2014-08-21 GONEN; Offir H04M1/724 715/745.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-6PM. 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, a supervisor, William 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.
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights