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 .
This office action is in response to application 18955837 filed on November 21, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15, and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18952365 (the reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 4-13, 15, and 17-20 are anticipated by claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 of the reference application (see an exemplary mapping of pending claim 1 and claim 1 of the reference application, similar mappings can be made to pending claims 2, 4-13, 15, and 17-20 and claims 4-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 of the reference application).
Regarding claim 1, the reference application recites:
An interface display method, applicable to an electronic device, the electronic device comprising a display screen, and the method comprising (An interface display method, applicable to an electronic device, the electronic device comprising a display screen, and the method comprising)(claim 1):
displaying a first interface of an application on the display screen (displaying a first interface of an application on the display screen)(claim 1); and
displaying a first area and a second area, and displaying the first interface in the first area and the second area, in response to detecting a preset operation, during the process of displaying the first interface, wherein both of the first area and the second area are configured to display an interface of the application (displaying a first area and a second area, displaying the first interface in the first area, and displaying ... interface in the second area, in response to detecting a preset operation ... during the process of displaying the first interface, wherein both of the first area and the second area are configured to display an interface of the application)(claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 4, 12-15, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the first target interface … for a first target interface” in the replacing limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first target interface” in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “a first target interface … for the first target interface”.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “redisplaying the first area in response to detecting the triggering operation for the drawer control”; however, claim 10 (i.e., the parent claim) recites parts of an area are hidden in response to detecting the triggering operation. It is unclear how the same triggering operation simultaneously hides and redisplays a first area. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “redisplaying the first area in response to detecting another triggering operation for the drawer control”.
Regarding claims 13-14, the claims depend on claim 12 and do not address the indefiniteness issue. As such, the claims are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “closing the first target interface” in the closing limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first target interface” in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “closing a first target interface”.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “for the first time” in the displaying limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first time” in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “a first time”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US20220253212A1); hereinafter referred to as Lou ‘212 in further view of Luo (US20220357845A1); hereinafter referred to as Lou ‘845.
Regarding claim 1, Lou ‘212 teaches an interface display method, applicable to an electronic device, the electronic device comprising a display screen, and the method comprising:
displaying a first interface of an application on the display screen (an interface of a first application that is displayed on the display screen before the screen splitting ... As shown in FIG. 4(a), in a process of using the mobile phone)([0084] and [0114]; Figure 4A – displaying an application interface on a screen is shown); and
displaying a first area and a second area, and displaying the first interface … in response to detecting a preset operation, during the process of displaying the first interface, wherein both of the first area and the second area are configured to display an interface … (FIG. 4(a) to FIG. 4(d) are a schematic diagram of a process of an example of the split-screen display processing ... the user splits a screen by using a preset screen splitting operation ... to split the screen of the mobile phone into a left area and a right area. The left area continues to display content of an operation interface of an application A that is originally in use. However, in the right area of the screen, one or more applications that are best combined with the application A)([0114]; Figure 4B - displaying areas in response to a splitting operation is shown).
Lou ‘212 differs from the claim in that Lou ‘212 fails to teach displaying the application interface in the first and the second areas. However, displaying an application interface in first and second areas is taught by Lou ‘845 (As shown in FIG. 4, a split-screen display method ... S401. In a process of running a first application to execute a first task ... S402. In response to the first operation, the mobile phone enables a split-screen display mode ...displays the display interface corresponding to the first task in a first display window ... displays the display interface corresponding to the second task in a second display window ... The first operation may be an input operation performed by a user ... the first task and the second task may be tasks in a same application. This is a scenario of in-application split-screen display)([0106], [0107], [0108], [0110], and [0118]; tasks of an application are concurrently displayed in two separate areas (i.e., windows)).
The examiner notes Lou ‘212 and Lou ‘845 teach a presenting interfaces for applications. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou ‘212 to include the displaying of Lou ‘845 such that an application interface is displayed in first and second areas. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing a user to multitask within an application.
Regarding claim 2, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising: displaying another first interface under the first interface displayed in the first area, and continuing to display the first interface in the second area, in response to detecting the preset operation for the first interface displayed in the second area; or displaying a second interface of the application jumped from the first interface in the second area in response to detecting an interface jump operation for the first interface displayed in the second area (Lou ‘845 - displays the display interface corresponding to the first task in a first display window ... displays the display interface corresponding to the second task in a second display window ... The first operation may be an input operation performed by a user ... the first task and the second task may be tasks in a same application. This is a scenario of in-application split-screen display)([0108], [0110], and [0118]; in response to a jump operation (i.e., first operation by a user) a second task interface of the application is displayed in a second area).
Regarding claim 6, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising: adjusting, based on a size adjusting operation, at least one of a size of the first area and a size of the second area in response to detecting the size adjusting operation for the first interface; or in response to detecting a browsing operation for the first area, swiping, based on the detected browsing operation, the plurality of interfaces in the first area, in a condition of the first area having a plurality of interfaces therein (Lou ‘212 - Optionally, in this process, the screen may also display a division line to split different areas of the screen, and the division line may split the screen into areas having different sizes as being dragged by the user)([0081]).
Regarding claim 7, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the first area is superimposed on the second area and covers a part of the second area; or there is no overlapping area between the first area and the second area (Lou ‘212 - a screen may be automatically split into two parts, and a division line is used between the two parts for demarcation)([0080]; a screen is divided evenly (i.e., without overlapping areas)).
Regarding claim 9, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the first area and the second area are horizontally arranged; or the first area and the second area are arranged longitudinally (Lou ‘212 - FIG. 4(a) to FIG. 4(d) are a schematic diagram of a process of an example of the split-screen display)([0114]; Figures 4A-4D – displaying areas longitudinally is shown).
Regarding claim 15, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first area and the second area comprises a closing control, and the method further comprises: closing, based on an area set by a triggered closing control, the first area or the second area in response to detecting a triggering operation for the closing control; or wherein at least one interface is displayed in the first area, an interface displayed in the first area comprises a closing control, and the method further comprises: closing the first target interface in the first area in response to detecting a triggering operation for the closing control of the first target interface displayed in the first area (Lou ‘212 - a disabling control may further be set on the screen, for example, “x” in the figure. After the user taps this symbol, a split-screen display mode may exits, and content of the application A is displayed in full screen)([0123]).
Regarding claim 16, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method according to claim 15, wherein the first target interface is the first interface (although Lou ‘212 does not disclose closing a first interface (i.e., a previously running first task), said closing is taught by Lou ‘845 (an effect of displaying the second task in split screen is implemented. If the user taps the view after the view is displayed ... exits the interface of the first task, and displays the interface of the second task in full screen)([0130]). The examiner notes Lou ‘212 and Lou ‘845 teach a presenting interfaces for applications. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou ‘212 to include the closing of Lou ‘845 such that a first interface is closed. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing a user to multitask within an application).
Regarding claim 17, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the preset operation comprises a drag-and-drop operation for a drag-and-drop control; or the preset operation comprises a target gesture operation; or the preset operation comprises a triggering operation for a fixed control (Lou ‘212 – the user splits a screen by using a preset screen splitting operation, that is, touches and holds a rightmost edge, to display a division line and a drag operation button shown in FIG. 4(a) on the screen)([0114]).
Regarding device claim 19, the claim generally corresponds to method claim 1, and recites similar features in device form; therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 20, the claim generally corresponds to method claim 1, and recites similar features in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form; therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and in further view of Hirata (US20230305686A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method as applied above, wherein a second interface is displayed when the application jumps from the first interface (Lou ‘845 - displays the display interface corresponding to the first task in a first display window ... displays the display interface corresponding to the second task in a second display window ... The first operation may be an input operation performed by a user ... the first task and the second task may be tasks in a same application. This is a scenario of in-application split-screen display)([0108], [0110], and [0118]).
Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 differs from the claim in that Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 fails to teach displaying multiple (i.e., different version) interfaces of the application in the first area. However, displaying different version interfaces of an application in a first area is taught by Hirata (In the example in FIG. 12 , the last version (i.e., version 4) and the second-to-last version (i.e., version 3) are displayed side-by-side. In order to display the two versions side-by-side ... the user inputs a checkmark in a checkbox C11 indicating “display versions side-by-side”)([0100]; Figure 12 – displaying different version interfaces of an application in a first area is shown)).
The examiner notes Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and Hirata teach a presenting interfaces for applications. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 to include the displaying of Hirata such that multiple interfaces of an application in a first area. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating application usage by allowing a user to quickly compare different versions of a document.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and in further view of Aguilar (US20110107272A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method as applied above, wherein the interface is displayed in the first area is different than the interface displayed in the second area (Lou ‘212 - FIG. 4(a) to FIG. 4(d) are a schematic diagram of a process of an example of the split-screen display processing method according to this application)([0114]; Figures 4A-4D – displaying different interfaces in different areas is shown).
Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 differs from the claim in that Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 fails to teach replacing a second target interface in the second area with a first target interface in the first area (i.e., swapping interfaces). However, swapping interfaces is taught by Aguilar (As can be seen in FIGS. 5 e and 5 f, there are two screens 510 and 510′ on the display unit 406, and the Navigation panel 431 is shown on the left screen 510′ while the Audio panel 432 is shown on the right screen 510. Assuming that the driver is on the left side and being prohibited from operating the navigation system, the driver can simply swap the Navigation panel 431 to the passenger side on the right)([0051]).
The examiner notes Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and Aguilar teach a presenting interfaces for applications. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 to include the swapping of Aguilar such that a second target interface in a second area is replaced with a first target interface in a first area. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating application usage by allowing a user to swap position of interfaces.
Regarding claim 5, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845- Aguilar teach the method according to claim 4, wherein the first target interface is the first interface, and the second target interface is the second interface (Aguilar - As can be seen in FIGS. 5 e and 5 f, there are two screens 510 and 510′ on the display unit 406, and the Navigation panel 431 is shown on the left screen 510′ while the Audio panel 432 is shown on the right screen 510 … the driver can simply swap the Navigation panel 431 to the passenger side on the right)([0051]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and in further view of Balasubramanian et al. (US20210286632A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method as applied above, wherein the first and the second areas are non-overlapping (Lou ‘212 - a screen may be automatically split into two parts, and a division line is used between the two parts for demarcation)([0080]; a screen is divided evenly (i.e., without overlapping areas)).
Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 differs from the claim in that Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 fails to teach displaying areas in a superimposed (i.e., overlapping) manner or a non-overlapping manner based on device size. However, displaying areas in an overlapping manner or a non-overlapping manner based on device size is taught by Balasubramanian (generating a user interface based on rules. In some examples, the rules can correspond to a particular type of device. For example, the rules for generating a user interface for a desktop computing device can differ from the rules for generating a user interface for a mobile device ... The plurality of rules can include whether application windows can be overlapped)([0014] and [0039]).
The examiner notes Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and Balasubramanian teach a presenting interfaces for applications. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 to include the displaying of Balasubramanian such that areas are displayed in an overlapping manner or a non-overlapping manner is based on device size. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage dynamically generating an appropriate display.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and in further view of Okuda (US20180232139A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method as applied above, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 differs from the claim in that Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 fails to teach triggering to hide other parts in an area other than a drawer control when displaying an interface in the area. However, triggering to hide other parts in an area other than a drawer control when displaying an interface in the area is taught by Okuda (the display controller 303 does not erase the display frame (window) for which a screen maintaining operation has been performed by the display frame maintaining determiner 307, and erases the display frame (window) for which no screen maintaining operation has been performed ... Referring to FIG. 21B, after window B is erased by a screen maintaining operation of window A, display candidates 2121 or a home screen 2122)([0070] and [0154]; Figure 21B – triggering to hide other parts of an interface (i.e., Window B) to display a drawer control (e.g., display candidates or home screen) is shown).
The examiner notes Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and Okuda teach a presenting interfaces for applications. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 to include the triggering of Okuda such that a trigger hides other parts in an area other than a drawer control when an interface is displayed in the area. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating user selection of a replacement interface to display.
Regarding claim 11, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845-Okuda teach the method according to claim 10, wherein a second target interface is displayed in the second area, and the method further comprises: placing the second target interface in a hidden first area, and continuing to displaying the second target interface in the second area, in response to detecting the preset operation for the second target interface (although Lou ‘212 does not teach hiding a target interface and redisplaying the target interface in response to a preset operation, said hiding and redisplaying is taught by Okuda (FIG. 26 is a view showing a screen maintaining operation ... Windows A and B are divisionally displayed ... In response to the screen maintaining touch 211 and the screen rotation instruction 2612 ... window C appears on the display screen 210, and window B moves to the end of the hidden windows ... In response to the screen maintaining touch 211 and the screen rotation instruction 2613 ... windows C, D, and B are rotated ... As a result, window B appears on the display screen 210, and windows C and D sequentially shift to be hidden (see the lower view))([0183], [0184], [0185], and [0186]). The examiner notes Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and Okuda teach a presenting interfaces for applications. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845-Okuda to include the hiding and redisplaying of Okuda such that a target interface is hidden and redisplayed in response to a preset operation. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating user selection of a replacement interface to display).
Regarding claim 12, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845-Okuda teach the method according to claim 11, wherein after hiding the other parts of the first area except the drawer control, the method further comprises: redisplaying the first area in response to detecting the triggering operation for the drawer control (Okuda – Referring to FIG. 21B, after window B is erased by a screen maintaining operation of window A, display candidates 2121 or a home screen 2122)([0154]; Figure 21B – selection of an application in a candidate display or home screen will result in displaying an interface in an area).
Regarding claim 13, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845-Okuda teach the method according to claim 12, wherein redisplaying the first area, comprises: redisplaying the first area and displaying the second target interface in the first area (Lou ‘212 - For example, the user selects the application B. In this case, an interface of the application B is displayed in the second area, as shown in FIG. 4(d))([0120]; as noted above, selection of an application will result in display an interface in an area, an exemplary presentation of displaying interfaces in areas is shown in Figure 4D).
Regarding claim 14, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845-Okuda teach the method according to claim 10, wherein the second target interface is the second interface (Lou ‘212 - For example, the user selects the application B. In this case, an interface of the application B is displayed in the second area, as shown in FIG. 4(d))([0120]; Figure 4D – displaying interfaces in areas is shown).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and in further view of Commarford et al. (US20120260203A1).
Regarding claim 18, Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 teach the method as applied above, wherein the preset operation is the drag and drop operation for the drag and drop control (Lou ‘212 – the user splits a screen by using a preset screen splitting operation, that is, touches and holds a rightmost edge, to display a division line and a drag operation button shown in FIG. 4(a) on the screen)([0114]).
Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 differs from the claim in that Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 fails to teach displaying a function description interface in response to the control being displayed for a first time, wherein the description interface comprises function description information. However, displaying a function description interface in response to a control being displayed for a first time, wherein the description interface comprises function description information is taught by Commarford (FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating one environment of a process for displaying an adaptive drag and drop zone in a user interface ... including initiation of a drag and drop events, in response to a display of a drop zone (block 200) ... configured to present to the user an initial drop zone having ... optional user assistance, such as text (e.g., “Drop files here”))([0020]).
The examiner notes Lou ‘212, Lou ‘845, and Commarford teach a presenting interfaces for applications. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou ‘212-Lou ‘845 to include the displaying of Commarford such that a function description interface is displayed in response to a control being displayed for a first time, wherein the description interface comprises function description information. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of assisting user during initial operations without taking up valuable screen real estate.
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 the reference fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for displaying application interfaces in areas of a display.
US20130187861A1
US20130191775A1
US20140002330A1
US20140089831A1
US20140189566A1
US20140351721A1
US20170168628A1
US20170322709A1
US20170322818A1
US20180121082A1
US20200177726A1
US20220334684A1
US20230236720A1
US20240036790A1
US20250321662A1
US8930847B2
US11237724B2
US12417059B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights