Detailed Action
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 .
Claim Objections
In claim 1, the limitation of “wherein the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation are performed simultaneously” is delineated from its corresponding method step with a semicolon, which is improper, because the convention of claim 1 uses semicolons to delineate distinct steps of the claimed method. The phrase “wherein the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation are performed simultaneously” is not a separate step of the method of claim 1, it is merely a further limitation of one of the steps. Therefore, the preceding semicolon should be replaced with a comma.
Claim 3, 5, 9, 13, 17, 18, and 20 each have a similar informality, requiring a similar correction.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Claims 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0071054 A1 (“Koch”).
Claim 16
Koch discloses:
A split-screen displaying method, comprising:
“FIGS. 6A-6B are flow diagrams illustrating a method 600 of replacing an unsplit keyboard with an integrated input area,” and vice versa. Koch ¶ 313.
displaying a user interface comprising split-screen regions;
In step 610, a device displays an “integrated input area” that “includes a left portion with a left side of a split keyboard, a right portion with a right side of the split keyboard, and a center portion in between the left portion and the right portion. For example, in FIGS. 5A-5C, in response to detection of gesture 5010, unsplit soft keyboard 5008 is replaced with integrated input area 5016. Integrated input area 5016 includes left split keyboard portion 5016-A, right split keyboard portion 5016-B, and center area 5016-C situated between the left and right portions 5016-A, 5016-B.” Koch ¶ 319.
receiving a first dragging operation on a first split-screen region of the split-screen regions and a second dragging operation on a second split-screen region of the split-screen regions, wherein the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation are performed simultaneously; and
“In some embodiments, while displaying the integrated input area, the device detects (622) a second gesture on the touch-sensitive surface (e.g., a gesture 5028 or 5032 on display 112, FIG. 5E).” Koch ¶ 327. “In some embodiments, the second gesture is (624) a multifinger (i.e., more than one finger) pinch gesture at a location on the touch-sensitive surface that corresponds to the location of the integrated input area on the display. For example, in FIG. 5E, gesture 5028 is a two-finger pinch gesture on display 112. In some embodiments, the two-finger pinch gesture requires symmetric horizontal movement.” Koch ¶ 328.
stopping displaying a fourth split-screen region in the case that the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation satisfy a split-screen closing condition, and the fourth split-screen region is displayed between the first split-screen region and the second split-screen region.
“In response to detecting the second gesture on the touch-sensitive surface, the device replaces (628) the integrated input area with the unsplit keyboard. For example, in FIGS. 5E–5G, in response to gesture 5028 or 5032, integrated input area 5016 is replaced with unsplit keyboard 5008.” Koch ¶ 330.
Claim 17
Koch discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the split-screen closing condition comprises:
a first dragging direction of the first dragging operation being a third target direction, and a second dragging direction of the second dragging operation being a fourth target direction; wherein the third target direction is reversed to the fourth target direction, and the third target direction is reversed to a direction in which the first split-screen region is located with respect to the second split-screen region, and the fourth target direction is reversed to a direction in which the second split-screen region is located with respect to the first split-screen region.
“In some embodiments, the second gesture is (624) a multifinger (i.e., more than one finger) pinch gesture at a location on the touch-sensitive surface that corresponds to the location of the integrated input area on the display. For example, in FIG. 5E, gesture 5028 is a two-finger pinch gesture on display 112. In some embodiments, the two-finger pinch gesture requires symmetric horizontal movement.” Koch ¶ 328.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is directed to a terminal, comprising a display screen, a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores at least one segment of programs, the at least one segment of programs is loaded and executed by the processor to implement operations either the operations of claim 16, or the operations of claim 1. In the rejection of claim 16, it was shown that Koch discloses a method 600 comprising all of the operations of claim 16. Furthermore, Koch also discloses a terminal with all of the hardware components recited in claim 18 that performs method 600. See Koch ¶¶ 332–333 and 542. Accordingly, since Koch discloses both the terminal itself and at least one of the two alternative sets of operations, Koch anticipates claim 18.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
I. Fang and Koch teach claims 1–15 and 18–20.
Claims 1–15 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0103793 A1 (hereafter “Fang”) in view of Koch.
Claim 1
Fang teaches:
A split-screen displaying method, comprising:
“FIG. 5 depicts a method 500 for altering a size or position of an application tab based on a predefined area of an application window.” Fang ¶ 56.
displaying a user interface comprising at least two split-screen regions;
As shown, method 500 is a loop. Upon completing the loop of method 500 a first time, “tab manager 132 presents application tab 608 and the content thereof in the right half area of application window 602,” and “presents control portion 702 above application tab 608, yet separate from the other control portions to indicate application tab 608’s association with the half area of application window 602,” as shown in workspace 700 of FIG. 7. Fang ¶ 68.
receiving a first dragging operation performed on a first split-screen region of the at least two split-screen regions
“By repeating operations of method 500, the user may also compare the content of application tab 606 with that of application tabs 604 and 608,” Fang ¶ 69, that is, “[a]t 502, input is received to present an application tab within an application window having predefined areas,” including a “directional input or gesture input received via a control portion of the application tab,” Fang ¶ 57, such as the control portion of application tab 606 shown in the top half of FIG. 7.
displaying a third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that the first dragging operation
“At 504, one of the predefined areas of the application window is selected based on the input received. The predefined area may be selected based on a direction of the input received or a location at which the input concludes.” Fang ¶ 59. Then, in steps 508 and 510, the method 500 involves previewing and eventually displaying the selected tab in the selected area, based on the input. Fang ¶¶ 64, 65, and 67. “An example of this is shown in workspace 704, which illustrates the presentation of application tabs 604, 606, and 608 in respective third areas of application window 602. As noted above, control portion 706 is presented above application tab 606, yet separate from the control portions of the other application tabs to indicated association with the third area of application window 602.” Fang ¶ 69.
In other words, FIG. 7 shows that tab control 606 may be dragged to cause its content 606 to be displayed in between the screens for tabs 604 and 608.
The difference between Fang and the claimed invention is that Fang lacks “a second dragging operation performed on a second split-screen region of the at least two split-screen regions; wherein the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation are performed simultaneously.”
Koch, however, teaches a device that detects exactly this gesture in method 600, including:
displaying a user interface comprising at least two split-screen regions;
At step 602, the device displays a user interface comprising the left side of a split keyboard and the right side of a split keyboard. Koch ¶ 315. This rejection does not necessarily assert that the “merged keyboard” is identical to a split screen, rather, this disclosure is merely included to help track how the logic of the claim corresponds to the logic taught by Koch.
receiving a first dragging operation performed on a first split-screen region of the at least two split-screen regions and a second dragging operation performed on a second split-screen region of the at least two split-screen regions;
“The device detects (604) a gesture on the touch-sensitive surface. For example, in FIG. 5A, gesture 5010 or 5014 is detected on display 112, which is a touch screen. In some embodiments, the gesture is (606) a multifinger (i.e., more than one finger) depinch gesture at a location on the touch-sensitive surface that corresponds to the location of the unsplit keyboard on the display.” Koch ¶¶ 316–317.
wherein the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation are performed simultaneously;
“For example, in FIG. 5A, gesture 5010 is a two-finger depinch gesture on unsplit soft keyboard 5008. In some embodiments, the two-finger depinch gesture requires symmetric horizontal movement (or movement within a predetermined angle of horizontal, such as 5°,10°,15°,or 20°) on the touch-sensitive surface.” Koch ¶ 317.
displaying a third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation satisfy a screen splitting condition, wherein the third split-screen region is located between the first split-screen region and the second split-screen region.
“In response to detecting the gesture on the touch-sensitive surface, the device replaces (610) the unsplit keyboard with an integrated input area. The integrated input area includes a left portion with a left side of a split keyboard, a right portion with a right side of the split keyboard, and a center portion in between the left portion and the right portion.” Koch ¶ 319.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Fang’s split screen interface with Koch’s multifinger depinch gesture, such that the third, middle split panel could be launched using Koch’s depinch gesture on the two respective split screen panels at the top of FIG. 7. One would have been motivated to use Koch’s multifinger depinch gesture method 600 with Fang’s device because “[t]he method reduces the cognitive burden on a user.” Koch ¶ 314.
Claim 2
Fang, as combined with Koch, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation satisfy a screen splitting condition, comprises:
displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that a first dragging parameter of the first dragging operation
“At 504, one of the predefined areas of the application window is selected based on the input received. The predefined area may be selected based on a direction of the input received or a location at which the input concludes.” Fang ¶ 59.
Since Fang only uses one dragging operation to create the third split, Fang does not explicitly anticipate considering a second dragging parameter of a second dragging operation.
Koch, however, teaches:
displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that a first dragging parameter of the first dragging operation and a second dragging parameter of the second dragging operation satisfy the screen splitting condition, wherein the first dragging parameter at least comprises a first dragging direction, and the second dragging parameter at least comprises a second dragging direction.
“In some embodiments, the two-finger depinch gesture requires symmetric horizontal movement (or movement within a predetermined angle of horizontal, such as 5°,10°,15°,or 20°) on the touch-sensitive surface.” Koch ¶ 317.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Fang’s split screen interface with Koch’s multifinger depinch gesture, such that the third, middle split panel could be launched using Koch’s depinch gesture on the two respective split screen panels at the top of FIG. 7. One would have been motivated to use Koch’s multifinger depinch gesture method 600 with Fang’s device because “[t]he method reduces the cognitive burden on a user.” Koch ¶ 314.
Claim 3
Fang, as combined with Koch, teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that the first dragging parameter of the first dragging operation and the second dragging parameter of the second dragging operation satisfy the screen splitting condition, comprises:
determining that the screen splitting condition is satisfied and displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface, in the case that the first dragging direction is a first target direction
“At 504, one of the predefined areas of the application window is selected based on the input received. The predefined area may be selected based on a direction of the input received or a location at which the input concludes.” Fang ¶ 59.
Since Fang only uses one dragging operation to create the third split, Fang does not explicitly anticipate considering a second dragging parameter of a second dragging operation.
Koch, however, teaches:
determining that the screen splitting condition is satisfied and displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface, in the case that the first dragging direction is a first target direction and the second dragging direction is a second target direction; wherein the first target direction is reversed to the second target direction, and the first target direction matches a direction in which the first split-screen region is located with respect to the second split-screen region, and the second target direction matches a direction in which the second split-screen region is located with respect to the first split-screen region.
“In some embodiments, the gesture is (606) a multifinger (i.e., more than one finger) depinch gesture at a location on the touch-sensitive surface that corresponds to the location of the unsplit keyboard on the display. For example, in FIG. 5A, gesture 5010 is a two-finger depinch gesture on unsplit soft keyboard 5008.” Koch ¶ 317.
“In response to detection of either gesture 5010 or 5014 on display 112, device 100 changes unsplit soft keyboard 5008 (FIG. 5A) into integrated input area 5016 (FIG. 5C). In some embodiments, an animation showing the transition from unsplit soft keyboard 5008 to integrated input area 5016 is displayed on display 112. For example, the transitional animation may show unsplit soft keyboard 5008 splitting into halves and center area 5016-C appearing between the halves, with the halves moving apart from each other in directions 5017-A and 5017-B (FIG. 5B). The halves become split keyboard portions 5016-A and 5016-B (FIG. 5C) and the keys of unsplit soft keyboard 5008 are divided amongst the halves.” Koch ¶ 243.
Claim 4
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 3, and Koch
in the case that the first split-screen region is located at a left side of the second split-screen region, the first target direction is a leftward direction, and the second target direction is a rightward direction; in the case that the first split-screen region is located on a right side of the second split-screen region, the first target direction is the rightward direction, and the second target direction is the leftward direction;
Since claims 1, 3, and 4 do not specify any further limitations on what must be within the “first split-screen region” and the “second split-screen region,” these two contingent limitations require exactly the same gesture of pulling apart the two split screen regions by dragging each one in whichever direction is opposite to the other, across a horizontal axis. Koch teaches this gesture for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 3, i.e., the depinch gesture pulls the two sides of the split away from each other, see Koch ¶¶ 317 and 243, and the rejection of claim 3 is based on the obviousness of applying this gesture to the two tabs in the top half of Fang FIG. 7.
in the case that the first split-screen region is located above the second split-screen region, the first target direction is an upward direction, and the second target direction is a downward direction; and in the case that the first split-screen region is located below the second split-screen region, the first target direction is the downward direction, and the second target direction is the upward direction.
Since claims 1, 3, and 4 do not specify any further limitations on what must be within the “first split-screen region” and the “second split-screen region,” these two contingent limitations require exactly the same gesture of pulling apart the two split screen regions by dragging each one in whichever direction is opposite to the other, across a vertical axis.
Fang likewise teaches that the arrangement shown in FIG. 7 may be performed the same way, but with “horizontal half-areas” rather than the vertical half-areas shown in FIG. 7. See Fang ¶ 70. In other words, we start out with the screen split vertically, such that there are two half-areas that span horizontally across the window rather than vertically, and then a third area may be added between the two simply by continuing to loop through process 500.
Koch likewise teaches that its depinch gesture works when the device is in landscape mode, rather than portrait. Koch ¶ 304. Consequently, when the device is landscape mode, the keyboard is displayed spanning from the top of the device to the bottom (i.e., across the long edge rather than the short edge), and the depinch gesture is up and down, rather than left and right from the perspective of the device’s sensors. Keep in mind the claimed invention is directed to how the device operates, not how the user perceives it.
Claim 5
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 3, and Fang further teaches:
adjusting the first split-screen region and the second split-screen region in the case that the first dragging direction is the first target direction
“At 506, a size or position of the application tab is altered based on the selected predefined area. The size or position of the application tab is altered such that content of the application tab will substantially occupy the predefined area of the application window. Alternately or additionally, a primacy of the application tab is modified when a previously non-primary application tab is selected for presentation. In some cases, a size or position of a currently-presented application tab is also altered based on another predefined area, such as one that is complimentary to the selected predefined area. In such cases, the size or position of the currently-presented application window is altered such that the content of the currently-presented application tab substantially occupies the other predefined area.” Fang ¶ 62. In the case of our three-way split example in FIG. 7, this means that the content for tabs 604 and 608 each shrink to accommodate their new smaller sizes, and also move in the sense that 604 and 608 are now further to the left and right of the workspace 704, respectively. See Fang ¶¶ 69–70 and FIG. 7.
Fang does not explicitly discloses a second drag as part of the gesture, so the direction of such a drag is not considered. Fang also does not necessarily relate the moving direction or zooming scale to the properties of the gesture.
Koch, however, teaches a method comprising:
adjusting the first split-screen region and the second split-screen region in the case that the first dragging direction is the first target direction and the second dragging direction is the second target direction, wherein the first split-screen region and the second split-screen region are adjusted by at least one of: moving and zooming;
“In response to detection of either gesture 5010 or 5014 on display 112, device 100 changes unsplit soft keyboard 5008 (FIG. 5A) into integrated input area 5016 (FIG. 5C). In some embodiments, an animation showing the transition from unsplit soft keyboard 5008 to integrated input area 5016 is displayed on display 112. For example, the transitional animation may show unsplit soft keyboard 5008 splitting into halves and center area 5016-C appearing between the halves, with the halves moving apart from each other in directions 5017-A and 5017-B (FIG. 5B). The halves become split keyboard portions 5016-A and 5016-B (FIG. 5C) and the keys of unsplit soft keyboard 5008 are divided amongst the halves.” Koch ¶ 243.
In addition to this gesture, the use may further customize the size of the split by providing the same two dragging inputs but in different directions, as shown in FIGS. 5BBB and 5FFF via gestures 5178 and 5182. See Koch ¶¶ 297 and 299.
wherein a moving direction of the first split-screen region is the first target direction, a moving direction of the second split-screen region is the second target direction; a zooming scale of the first split-screen region is related to a dragging distance in the first target direction, and a zooming scale of the second split-screen region is related to a dragging distance in the second target direction.
“[M]ovement by one thumb adjusts the size of the corresponding side of the split keyboard,” and in the direction of the movement. Koch ¶ 441. “For example in FIGS. 5BBB-5CCC, gesture 5178 is detected on display 112. Gesture 5178 includes a left thumb moving horizontally toward the left vertical side of display 112. In response to detection of gesture 5178, left split keyboard portion 5039-A reduces in size.” FIGS. 5BBB–5CCC further show the reduction occurring in the leftward direction. Koch ¶ 441. “Analogously, in some embodiments, movement by the right thumb toward the right vertical side of the display and away from the right vertical side of the display decreases and increases, respectively, the size of the right side of the split keyboard, as shown in FIGS. 5FFF–5III.” Koch ¶ 443.
Furthermore, in addition to reducing the overall footprint of each respective side of the split keyboard, “the keys in split keyboard portion 5039-A rescale in accordance with the size reduction of split keyboard portion 5039-A.” Koch ¶ 297.
Claim 6
“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.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). Here, every additional element of claim 6 is contingent upon the unmet conditions precedent of “the case that the first dragging direction is the first target direction and the second dragging direction is the second target direction” and “the case that a sum of the first dragging distance and the second dragging distance is greater than a first distance threshold and less than a second distance threshold.”
Since claim 6 does not require the conditions precedent of either conditional statement, it does not require the steps that are contingent upon those unmet steps. Therefore, claim 6 is obvious over the prior art simply because the prior art teaches each and every element of the limitations that claim 6 incorporates by reference from claim 3.
Claim 7
“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.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). Here, every additional element of claim 7 is contingent upon the unmet condition precedent of “the case that the sum of the first dragging distance and the second dragging distance is greater than the second distance threshold.”
Since claim 7 does not require the sum of the two dragging distances to exceed the second distance threshold, it cannot require performance of the step of exiting the split screen state. Therefore, claim 7 is at least obvious over all of the teachings discussed thus far with respect to the required claim elements.
Claim 8
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 3, wherein the determining that the screen splitting condition is satisfied and displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface, in the case that the first dragging direction is a first target direction and the second dragging direction is a second target direction, comprises:
determining a first dragging endpoint of the first dragging operation and a second dragging endpoint of the second dragging operation, in the case that the first dragging direction is the first target direction and the second dragging direction is in the second target direction; and
“[M]ovement by one thumb adjusts the size of the corresponding side of the split keyboard,” and in the direction of the movement. Koch ¶ 441. “For example in FIGS. 5BBB-5CCC, gesture 5178 is detected on display 112. Gesture 5178 includes a left thumb moving horizontally toward the left vertical side of display 112. In response to detection of gesture 5178, left split keyboard portion 5039-A reduces in size.” FIGS. 5BBB–5CCC further show the reduction occurring in the leftward direction. Koch ¶ 441. “Analogously, in some embodiments, movement by the right thumb toward the right vertical side of the display and away from the right vertical side of the display decreases and increases, respectively, the size of the right side of the split keyboard, as shown in FIGS. 5FFF–5III.” Koch ¶ 443.
Furthermore, in both cases, the device knows when (and thus necessarily where) the gesture ends by “detecting a finger up (lift off) event.” Koch ¶ 139.
determining that the screen splitting condition is satisfied and displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface, in the case that the first dragging endpoint is located in a first screen region and the second dragging endpoint is located in a second screen region.
“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.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). In this case, claim 8 does not require “the first dragging endpoint is located in a first screen region and the second dragging endpoint is located in a second screen region,” it merely says what would happen if (“in a case that”) the dragging endpoints were to be located in the respective first and second screen regions. Therefore, the prior art does not need to teach this optional claim element in order to reach a conclusion of obviousness.
The Applicant is advised that merely changing “in the case that” to “in response to” or “when” will not prevent this reading. To avoid an optional reading, the Applicant must amend claim 8 to require a separate step of determining that the first and second endpoints are located in the first and second screen regions. Doing so will make this claim element a required limitation, necessitating a new ground of rejection.1
Claim 9
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 8,
wherein a third screen region is present between the first screen region and a first screen edge, and a fourth screen region is present between the second screen region and a second screen edge; the first screen edge is a screen edge corresponding to the first target direction, and the second screen edge is a screen edge corresponding to the second target direction;
As shown throughout the figures (but specifically labeled in FIG. 4), the application window (e.g., application window 402 in FIG. 4) that displays each of the respective split screens is smaller than the display 134, leaving margins on both the left side of the left split and the right side of the right split.
and the method further comprises: exiting the split-screen state in the case that the first dragging endpoint is located in the third screen region, or, the second dragging endpoint is located in the fourth screen region, wherein after exiting the split-screen state, the at least two split-screen regions stop being displayed.
“[A]pplication tabs may be removed from an application window by dragging the application tab, via a control portion, to another application window or a different area of a workspace.” Fang ¶ 69.
Claim 10
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface, comprises:
displaying the third split-screen region in a first size in the user interface, wherein the first size is a fixed size; or displaying the third split-screen region of a second size in the user interface based on the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation.
“[M]ovement by one thumb adjusts the size of the corresponding side of the split keyboard,” and in the direction of the movement. Koch ¶ 441. “For example in FIGS. 5BBB–5CCC, gesture 5178 is detected on display 112. Gesture 5178 includes a left thumb moving horizontally toward the left vertical side of display 112. In response to detection of gesture 5178, left split keyboard portion 5039-A reduces in size.” FIGS. 5BBB–5CCC further show the reduction occurring in the leftward direction. Koch ¶ 441. “Analogously, in some embodiments, movement by the right thumb toward the right vertical side of the display and away from the right vertical side of the display decreases and increases, respectively, the size of the right side of the split keyboard, as shown in FIGS. 5FFF–5III.” Koch ¶ 443.
Claim 11
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 10, wherein the displaying the third split-screen region of a second size in the user interface based on the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation, comprises:
determining a first dragging distance of the first dragging operation in the first dragging direction and a second dragging distance of the second dragging operation in the second dragging direction; and determining the second size based on a sum of the first dragging distance and the second dragging distance; and displaying the third split-screen region of the second size in the user interface.
“[M]ovement by one thumb adjusts the size of the corresponding side of the split keyboard,” and in the direction of the movement. Koch ¶ 441. “For example in FIGS. 5BBB-5CCC, gesture 5178 is detected on display 112. Gesture 5178 includes a left thumb moving horizontally toward the left vertical side of display 112. In response to detection of gesture 5178, left split keyboard portion 5039-A reduces in size.” FIGS. 5BBB–5CCC further show the reduction occurring in the leftward direction. Koch ¶ 441. “Analogously, in some embodiments, movement by the right thumb toward the right vertical side of the display and away from the right vertical side of the display decreases and increases, respectively, the size of the right side of the split keyboard, as shown in FIGS. 5FFF–5III.” Koch ¶ 443.
In other words, Koch teaches that the user can set a custom width for both the left and the right sides of the split, and in so doing, the size of the middle area (as taught by the figures) is necessarily the sum of the amount that each side of the split keyboard was modified, which directly corresponds to the length of the gestures 5178.
Claim 12
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a split-screen application selection interface in the third split-screen region;
Rather than dragging an existing tab (as in the FIG. 7 example), the user may instead drag an “application tab control 1612” in any region that Fang discloses for splitting the screen. See Fang ¶ 113 (explaining that instead of the lower right corner drag shown in FIG. 16, “application tabs may be added to other predefined areas of an application window via directional input”).
displaying a target application interface in the third split-screen region based on a selection operation performed on a target application in the split-screen application selection interface.
“In response to input 1610, tab manager 132 presents tab launcher 1614, which enable the user to select an additional application tab for presentation in application window 1604. Tab manager 132 then presents, in response to selection of an application tab, application tab 1616 in the lower-right quadrant of application window 1604.” Fang ¶ 113.
Claim 13
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 12, wherein the displaying a split-screen application selection interface in the third split-screen region, comprises:
displaying, based on a first application displayed in the first split-screen region and a second application displayed in the second split-screen region, the split-screen application selection interface, which comprises candidate applications, in the third split-screen region;
In response to the tab launcher input discussed in the rejection of claim 12, tab manager 132 selects several candidate application tabs to add to the newly split screen area, and then, “visual representations of application tabs are presented in the predefined area of the application window . . . via a menu or list proximate the predefined area.” Fang ¶ 108.
wherein a displaying priority level of each candidate application in the split-screen application selection interface is positively correlated with a correlation of the candidate application with respect to the first application and the second application.
“In such cases, the visual representations of the application tabs may be ordered or organized based on . . . relevancy to existing application tabs.” Fang ¶ 108. Furthermore, in addition to ordering and organizing based on relevancy to the currently active tabs, the tabs that are actually selected for inclusion in the menu may also be selected with respect to the existing application tabs. For example, “the set of application tabs includes application tabs that are grouped or linked with existing application tabs of the application window. For example, any application tab that was previously presented with an application tab currently presented in the application window may be selectable to add back to the application window.” Fang ¶ 106.
18. A terminal, comprising a display screen, a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores at least one segment of programs, the at least one segment of programs is loaded and executed by the processor to implement operations of:
displaying a user interface comprising at least two split-screen regions;
receiving a first dragging operation performed on a first split-screen region of the at least two split-screen regions and a second dragging operation performed on a second split-screen region of the at least two split-screen regions; wherein the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation are performed simultaneously;
displaying a third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation satisfy a screen splitting condition, wherein the third split-screen region is located between the first split-screen region and the second split-screen region;
or
displaying a user interface comprising split-screen regions;
receiving a first dragging operation on a first split-screen region of the split-screen regions and a second dragging operation on a second split-screen region of the split-screen regions, wherein the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation are performed simultaneously; and
stopping displaying a fourth split-screen region in the case that the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation satisfy a split-screen closing condition, and the fourth split-screen region is displayed between the first split-screen region and the second split-screen region.
19. The terminal according to claim 18, wherein, when displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation satisfy a screen splitting condition, the at least one segment of programs is loaded and executed by the processor to implement operations of:
displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that a first dragging parameter of the first dragging operation and a second dragging parameter of the second dragging operation satisfy the screen splitting condition, wherein the first dragging parameter at least comprises a first dragging direction, and the second dragging parameter at least comprises a second dragging direction.
20. The terminal according to claim 19, wherein, when displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that the first dragging parameter of the first dragging operation and the second dragging parameter of the second dragging operation satisfy the screen splitting condition, the at least one segment of programs is loaded and executed by the processor to implement operations of:
determining that the screen splitting condition is satisfied and displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface, in the case that the first dragging direction is a first target direction and the second dragging direction is a second target direction;
wherein the first target direction is reversed to the second target direction, and the first target direction matches a direction in which the first split-screen region is located with respect to the second split-screen region, and the second target direction matches a direction in which the second split-screen region is located with respect to the first split-screen region.
Claim 15
“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.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). Here, every additional element of claim 15 is contingent upon the unmet conditions precedent of “when a triggered operation is performed on the split-screen control,” and “when a trigger operation is performed on a split-screen creation option in the split-screen menu.” See also Ex Parte Rebstock, PTAB Appeal No. 2014-001247 (April 7, 2017) (non-precedential) (holding that the word “when” is conditional language).
Claims 18–20
Claims 18–20 are rejected over all of the same findings and rationale as provided above in the rejection of corresponding claims 1–3, and further in view of both references’ disclosures of the same hardware for the claimed terminal. See Fang ¶¶ 25–27 and Koch ¶¶ 332–333 and 542.
II. Fang, Koch, and Ning teach claim 14.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang and Koch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 113542829 A (“Ning”).2
Claim 14
Fang and Koch teach the method according to claim 1, but neither one explicitly discloses a quantity threshold of split screen regions, let alone prompting the user when the threshold is met.
Ning, however, teaches
displaying the third split-screen region in the user interface in the case that the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation satisfy the screen splitting condition and the number of the at least two split-screen regions does not reach a quantity threshold; and wherein the method further comprises: providing a split-screen upper-limit prompt in the case that the first dragging operation and the second dragging operation satisfy the screen splitting condition and the number of the at least two split-screen regions reaches the quantity threshold.
In a method performed by a television display, the display “determines whether the number of split-screen areas has reached a preset threshold; if the number of split-screen areas has reached the preset threshold, a prompt message is generated to remind the user that the number of split-screen areas has reached the upper limit and no more signal source can be connected.” Ning ¶ 76.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Fang and Koch by limiting the number of split screen display areas that the system allows, and warning the user when that limit is met. One would have been motivated to improve Fang and Koch with Ning’s technique because this technique helps the user “avoid dividing the display interface into too small areas, which would reduce the image display quality of the split-screen areas and affect the user’s viewing experience.” Ning ¶ 77.
Other Prior Art
U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2023/0305692 A1, 2024/0061543 A1, 2014/0337794 A1, 2015/0365306 A1, 2018/0329550 A1 each teach techniques applicable to the optional elements of claim 8, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0167058 A1 teaches the same for both claims 8 and 9.
Beyond these, the additionally cited references teach further methods and features that touch and concern the claimed invention, and are therefore included for their relevance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm 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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 For the sake of compact prosecution, please refer to the “Other Prior Art” section at the end of this Office Action for examples of references that might serve as a tertiary reference.
2 This rejection will refer to and quote a machine translation obtained from Espacenet, a copy of which is attached to this Office Action coded as REF.OTHER.
Prosecution Insights