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 .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 12/10/2024, said application claims a priority date of 05/30/2024.
Claims 1-8 are pending in the case.
Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims.
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 1-8 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.
Independent Claims 1 and 8:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the display" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “one or a plurality of displays.” It is unclear if “the display” refers to the one display or one of the plurality of displays or a different display. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to recite “a first display of the one or the plurality of displays.” Every corresponding instance of this limitation would also need to be updated to recite “the first display.”
Claims 2-7:
Claims 2-7 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nelson (US 2009/0300541 A1, published 12/03/2009, hereinafter “Nelson”).
Independent Claim 8:
Nelson discloses a control method in an information processing apparatus including a memory configured to store a program of a system and a program of an application operating on the system, and a processor configured to control displaying a window of the application in a screen area of one or a plurality of displays by executing the program of the system and the program of the application which are stored in the memory, the method comprising (The memory includes a program for the Windows operating system and at least a word-processing application, Nelson: Fig. 1, abstract, ¶ [0033]-[0035], [0039], [0044]):
when a drag operation is accepted on the window that is displayed on the display (This limitation is a contingent limitation in a method claim that does not necessarily have to be performed. In particular, this limitation is only triggered when the user performs a drag operation, and the claim doesn’t recite that a drag operation was ever received. According to MPEP § 2111.04(II), “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Accordingly, under BRI the prior art does not need to teach this limitation. The following limitations are nested within this limitation and are subject to the same trigger condition. As such, the following limitations are also contingent limitations that do not necessarily have to be performed and therefore the prior art is not required to teach the following limitations.),
a first display process of displaying first icons corresponding to each of the one or the plurality of displays on the screen area of the display on which the drag operation is started,
a first selection process of selecting a display corresponding to an icon selected by the drag operation among the first icons corresponding to each of the one or the plurality of displays as a display for displaying the window being dragged,
a second display process of displaying a second icon from which a display area is selectable for displaying the window within the screen area of the display selected by the first selection process,
a display cancelation process of canceling the display of the first icon by the first display process and the display of the second icon by the second display process in response to an operation position by the drag operation reaching a predetermined first area within the screen area of the display, and
a display resumption process of resuming the display of the first icon by the first display process and the display of the second icon by the second display process after the display of the first icon and the display of the second icon are canceled by the display cancelation process, in response to the operation position by the drag operation moving out of a second area including the first area within the screen area of the display.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner has determined that Nelson is the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Nelson teaches that the user can perform an operation on an application window to cause a menu to be displayed that provides options for selecting from a plurality of monitors and after a monitor is selected a second menu is presented for selecting a location for the application window within the selected monitor (Nelson: Figs. 1 and 5, ¶ [0044], [0048]). However, Nelson doesn’t teach that the operation is a drag operation and that the menu is displayed at the start location of the drag operation. Nelson also doesn’t teach the claimed display cancelation process and display resumption process.
However, Papamarcos et al. (US 2023/0305692 A1, hereinafter “Papamarcos”) teaches that the user can cause a layout menu to appear based on a drag operation performed on an application window and that a particular layout can be selected based on the drag operation (Papamarcos: Figs. 1-5A, abstract.). However, Papamarcos does not teach that the menu is displayed at the start location of the drag operation. Papamarcos also doesn’t teach the claimed display cancellation process and display resumption process.
Examiner was not able to find any prior art to cure the deficiencies of Nelson and Papamarcos. Accordingly, claim 1 comprises allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Zhang et al., US 2025/0004623 A1 (When the user drags an application window, icons are displayed that enable the user to select a display layout via dropping the application window over one of said icons, Figs. 3A-3C, ¶ [0007].)
Ni, US 2025/0328239 A1 (The user can select a layout by dragging the application window to a layout icon, Fig. 4D, ¶ [0207].)
Yue et al., US 2024/0004524 (The user can drag the application window to display a layout selection menu, Fig. 2B, ¶ [0036]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights