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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, At pages 5-6, Applicant alleges Shim does not teach or disclose “the scaling ratio of the first window to the screen is a factor in determining the actual display position and the actual display size of the first system control.” Applicant generally argues the references do not teach the newly added limitation “an actual display size of the first system control is determined based on the default display size of the first system control and the scaling ratio of the first window to the screen”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As clearly illustrated by Shim in FIGS. 3-7, the function menu window 40 is produced proportional to the size of the window in which it is produced. For example, at FIGS. 4 and 5 and [0076]-[0083], the size of menu window 40 is shown as proportional to a size of the window E and F, whereas at FIG. 7 and [0090]-[0092] the size of the menu window 40 is shown in proportion to the smaller popup window 60 (G). Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits the Shim reference clearly discloses scaling the menu in proportion to the window in which it is produced. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully submits Shim clearly discloses “an actual display size of the first system control is determined based on the default display size of the first system control and the scaling ratio of the first window to the screen” (FIGS. 4-5, 420 and 520 with FIG. 7, 720, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two-window display, however, in a pop-up third window 60 of FIG. 7 at 710 and 720 function menu window 40 is in proportion to the pop-up 60 at [0086]-[0087]; therefore, the function menu window 40 is adjusted and in proportion to the window size based on display 130 screen size, creating the size ratio, either half windows 31, 32, or pop-up window 60; noting size of the function menu 40 is proportional (i.e., ratio/scaled) – as illustrated – to the section in which it is disposed; for example FIGS. 4 and 5, 420 and 520 the function menu 40 is respectfully sized to half the display in a first window, FIG. 7 the function menu 40 is respectfully sized to the pop up display window) as properly disclosed below. As such, Examiner respectfully submits the limitation is properly addressed, and therefore, this claim and all claims depending therefrom stand rejected.
Regarding claim 3 and similarly claim 11, Applicant appears to argue Shim in view of Hwang allegedly does not disclose "wherein the first system control is displayed based on a default display position and a default display size, and the default display position and the default display size of the first system control are adapted to the first virtual screen." Examiner respectfully disagrees. As properly addressed below, Shim in view of Hwang clearly discloses wherein the first system control is displayed based on a default display position (Shim at default position is top right hand corner; FIG. 4, [0077] 420, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window E; FIG. 5, [0081]-[0083] 520, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window F; FIG. 7, [0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G) and a default display size (Shim default display size is based on the first arrangement of two windows, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two window display, FIG. 4, [0077] 420, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window E; FIG. 5, [0081]-[0083] 520, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window F; FIG. 7, [0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G) and the default display position and the default display size of the first system control are adapted to the virtual screen (Hwang at FIGS. 24-29, [0120]-[0131] placement of the keyboard 500 is overlayed outside of the app window at a predetermined region having the shape and size as illustrated, unlike the normal mode of a single application being fixed and in a pre-defined region by the application; additionally FIG. 30, setting item 700 described at [0133]-[0135]). Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits these claims, and all claims depending therefrom, are properly addressed and rejected below.
With regard to newly added claims 19 and 20, all limitations of these claims have been properly addressed below. Therefore, these claims stand rejected.
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, 3-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al., US 2019/0243516 A1 (hereinafter “Shim”) in view of Hwang et al., US 2014/00898833 A1 (hereinafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 1, Shim discloses a method (FIGS.1-2, [0048]-[0062] generally describing a method), applied to an electronic device (FIG. 1, [0031]-[0047] describing electronic device 100) comprising a screen (FIGS. 1-3, display unit 130 at [0032], [0037]-[0040], [0050] and [0065]-[0069]), the method comprising:
displaying a first window (FIGS. 3-7, windows 31, 32 therein, alternatively window 60 at [0064], [0076], and [0084]-[0092]), wherein the first window displays a first application (FIGS. 3-7, [0064], [0076], and [0084]-[0092] various applications A-G opened in their respectively labeled window; for example FIG. 3 and [0064]-[0071] 310 with application A opened on the display 130, or 320 with split window 31 and 32 displaying applications A and B respectively), and an area of the first window (FIGS. 3-7 and windows 31, 32, and 60) is less than an area of the screen (FIGS. 3-7, windows 31, 32 therein, alternatively window 60 at [0064], [0076], and [0084]-[0092] all of which are smaller than the screen/display area 130); and
displaying a first system control (FIGS. 4, 5, and 7, [0077], [0081]-[0083], [0086]-[0092] function menu window 40, noting selection of a first split window E, which produces the function window 420) in a display region of the first window (FIG. 4, [0077] 420, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window E; FIG. 5, [0081]-[0083] 520, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window F; FIG. 7, [0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G) in response to an operation (FIGS. 4, 5, and 7, [0077], [0081]-[0083], [0086]-[0092] touch input performed within the respective app windows E at 410, F at 510, G at 710) performed by a user (FIGS. 3-7 and [0011] [0077] [0077], [0081]-[0083], [0086]-[0092] user touch input detected in the window at [0083]) on the first application (FIGS. 3-7 and windows 31, 32, 52, 60),
wherein an actual display position (FIG. 4, [0077] 420, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window E; FIG. 5, [0081]-[0083] 520, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window F; FIG. 7, [0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G) of the first system control is determined based on a default display position (default position is top right hand corner; FIG. 4, [0077] 420, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window E; FIG. 5, [0081]-[0083] 520, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window F; FIG. 7, [0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G) of the first system control (default display size is based on the first arrangement of two windows, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two window display, FIG. 7,[0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G, with display size of the pop-up window 60) and a scaling ratio of the first window to the screen (FIGS. 4-5, 420 and 520 with FIG. 7, 720, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two-window display, however, in a pop-up third window 60 of FIG. 7 at 710 and 720 function menu window 40 is in proportion to the pop-up 60 at [0086]-[0087]; therefore, the function menu window 40 is adjusted and in proportion to the window size based on display 130 screen size, creating the size ratio, either half windows 31, 32, or pop-up window 60), an actual display size of the first system control is determined based on the default display size of the first system control and the scaling ratio of the first window to the screen (FIGS. 4-5, 420 and 520 with FIG. 7, 720, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two-window display, however, in a pop-up third window 60 of FIG. 7 at 710 and 720 function menu window 40 is in proportion to the pop-up 60 at [0086]-[0087]; therefore, the function menu window 40 is adjusted and in proportion to the window size based on display 130 screen size, creating the size ratio, either half windows 31, 32, or pop-up window 60; noting size of the function menu 40 is proportional (i.e., ratio/scaled) – as illustrated – to the section in which it is disposed; for example FIGS. 4 and 5, 420 and 520 the function menu 40 is respectfully sized to half the display in a first window, FIG. 7 the function menu 40 is respectfully sized to the pop up display window), the actual display position and the actual display size of the first system control are adapted to the first window (FIGS. 4-5, 420 and 520 with FIG. 7, 720, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two-window display based on the size of the window, however, in a pop-up third window 60 of FIG. 7 at 710 and 720, function menu window 40 is in proportion to the pop-up 60 at [0086]-[0087]).
However, Shim does not explicitly disclose and the default display position and the default display size of the first system control are adapted to the screen.
In the same field of endeavor, Hwang discloses and the default display position and the default display size of the first system control are adapted to the screen (FIGS. 24-29, [0120]-[0131] placement of the keyboard 500 is overlayed outside of the app window at a predetermined region having the shape and size as illustrated, unlike the normal mode of a single application being fixed and in a pre-defined region by the application; additionally FIG. 30, setting item 700 described at [0133]-[0135]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the placement, positioning and size of the function menu of Shim to incorporate the floating positioning of the input operation as disclosed by Hwang because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, screen sizing, navigation and various input modalities of multiple application windows on a display device. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve convenience and usability of the touch device for a user (see Hwang at least at [0008]-[0012] and [0168]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Shim discloses method (FIGS.1-2, [0048]-[0062] generally describing a method), applied to an electronic device (FIG. 1, [0031]-[0047] describing electronic device 100) comprising a screen (FIGS. 1-3, display unit 130 at [0032], [0037]-[0040], [0050] and [0065]-[0069]), the method comprising:
displaying a first window (FIGS. 3-7, windows 31, 32 therein, alternatively windows 52, 55, 60, 70 at [0064], [0076], and [0084]-[0092]), wherein the first window displays a first application (FIGS. 3-7, [0064], [0076], and [0084]-[0092] various applications A-G opened in their respectively labeled window; for example FIG. 3 and [0064]-[0071] 310 with application A opened on the display 130, or 320 with split window 31 and 32 displaying applications A and B respectively), an area of the first window (FIGS. 3-7 and windows 31, 32, 52, 60 and 70) is less than an area of the screen (FIGS. 3-7, windows 31, 32 therein, alternatively windows 52, 70 at [0064], [0076], and [0084]-[0092] all of which are smaller than the screen/display area 130), the first window corresponds to a first virtual screen (FIGS. 3-7 [0009]-[0011] and [0034] and [0038]-[0044] with windows A-G corresponding to various applications simultaneously executed; FIG. 9 and [0103]-[0108] and list 95 of apps may be display on the display unit 130 of the device 100), the first virtual screen is created when the first window is created (FIGS. 3-7 with windows A-G being created in accordance with selection and corresponding to various applications simultaneously executed at [0009]-[0011] and [0034] and [0038]-[0044] and [0064]-[0070]; FIG. 9 and [0103]-[0108] and list 95 of apps may be display on the display unit 130 of the device 100), and the first virtual screen is specific to the first window displaying the first application (FIGS. 3-7 subdividing the screen for the application launched when selected at [0065], the virtual screen being the area of the total screen dedicated to the selected app A-G which becomes the first window displaying the first application; e.g., FIG. 3, subsequent selection 12 of B creates screen/window 32 for the application B at [0064]-[0070]); and
displaying a first system control (FIGS. 4, 5, and 7, [0077], [0081]-[0083], [0086]-[0092] function menu window 40) in a display region of the first window (FIG. 4, [0077] 420, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window E; FIG. 5, [0081]-[0083] 520, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window F; FIG. 7, [0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G) in response to an operation (FIGS. 4, 5, and 7, [0077], [0081]-[0083], [0086]-[0092] touch input performed within the respective app windows E at 410, F at 510, G at 710) performed by a user (FIGS. 3-4 and [0011] [0077] [0077], [0081]-[0083], [0086]-[0092] user touch input detected in the window) on the first application (FIGS. 3-7 and windows 31, 32, 52, 60), wherein the first system control is displayed based on a default display position (default position is top right hand corner; FIG. 4, [0077] 420, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window E; FIG. 5, [0081]-[0083] 520, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window F; FIG. 7, [0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G) and a default display size (default display size is based on the first arrangement of two windows, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two window display, FIG. 4, [0077] 420, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window E; FIG. 5, [0081]-[0083] 520, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window F; FIG. 7, [0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G).
However, Shim does not explicitly disclose and the default display position and the default display size of the first system control are adapted to the virtual screen.
In the same field of endeavor, Hwang discloses and the default display position and the default display size of the first system control are adapted to the virtual screen (FIGS. 24-29, [0120]-[0131] placement of the keyboard 500 is overlayed outside of the app window at a predetermined region having the shape and size as illustrated, unlike the normal mode of a single application being fixed and in a pre-defined region by the application; additionally FIG. 30, setting item 700 described at [0133]-[0135]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the placement, positioning and size of the function menu of Shim to incorporate the floating positioning of the input operation as disclosed by Hwang because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, screen sizing, navigation and various input modalities of multiple application windows on a display device. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve convenience and usability of the touch device for a user (see Hwang at least at [0008]-[0012] and [0168]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 3 (see above), wherein the default display position and the default display size of the first system control are adapted to the first window (Shim at FIGS. 4-5, 420 and 520 with FIG. 7, 720, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two-window display based on the size of the window, however, in a pop-up third window 60 of FIG. 7 at 710 and 720, function menu window 40 is in proportion to the pop-up 60 at [0086]-[0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 3 (see above), wherein the first system control comprises one of following controls: a message prompt box (see below, condition satisfied), a system dialog box (see below, condition satisfied), an error pop-up box (see below, condition satisfied), a floating box (Hwang, FIGS. 24-29 at [0118]-[0131] floating keyboard 500), an input method window (Hwang, FIGS. 24-29 at [0118]-[0131] floating keyboard 500; Shim at FIGS. 3-7 with function menu window 40), or a system status bar (see above, condition satisfied).
Regarding claim 7, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 3 (see above), wherein the actual display position of the first system control changes with a position of the first window (Shim FIGS. 6-7 at [0086]-[0092], the position of the pop-up window 60 can be moved, and therefore, the function menu window 40 would move with pop-up window 60), and the actual display position of the first system control does not exceed the position of the first window (Shim FIGS. 6-7 at [0086]-[0092], the position of the pop-up window 60 can be moved, and therefore, the function menu window 40 would move with it, without leaving its bounds as displayed).
Regarding claim 8, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 3 (see above), wherein the actual display size of the first system control changes with the size of the first window (Shim function menu window 40 changes based on the window within which it resides, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two window display, and FIG. 7, [0086]-[0092] 720, function menu window 40 at top right hand corner of the app window G is sized to fit the pop up window 60), and the actual display size of the first system control does not exceed a range of the first window (Shim FIGS. 4 and 5 function menu window 40 of 420 and 520, is sized the same in a two window display; FIGS. 6-7 at [0086]-[0092], the position of the pop-up window 60 can be moved, and therefore, the function menu window 40 would move with it, without leaving its bounds as displayed).
Regarding claim 10, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 3 (see above), wherein the first window is a projection window (Shim FIGS. 3-7 and 9 and at [0103]-[0109] windows may be displayed on the display unit 130 from the display apparatus 200).
Regarding claim 11, it is similar in scope to claim 3 above, the only difference being Shim discloses an electronic device (Shim at FIG. 1, [0031]-[0047] describing electronic device 100), comprising: at least one processor (Shim at FIG. 1, controller 110 and [0034]-[0050]); a memory (Shim at FIG. 1, storage unit 120 at [0032]-[0033] and [0041]); and a touchscreen (Shim at [0037] and [0065]-[0071] touch inputs on a touch screen display 130), wherein the memory and the touchscreen are coupled to the at least one processor (Shim at FIG. 1 [0031]-[0035]), the memory is configured to store computer program code (Shim at FIG. 1, [0032]-[0033] and [0041] storage unit 130 stores program(s)), the computer program code comprises computer instructions (Shim at FIG. 1, and [0041] and [0109]), and when the at least one processor reads the computer instructions from the memory (Shim at FIG. 1 and [0031]-[0041] and [0109]-[0111]), the electronic device is enabled to perform operations similar to the method of claim 3 (see above). Therefore, claim 11 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is similar in scope to claim 4; therefore, claim 12 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is similar in scope to claim 6; therefore, claim 14 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is similar in scope to claim 7; therefore, claim 15 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is similar in scope to claim 8; therefore, claim 16 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is similar in scope to claim 10; therefore, claim 18 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the first system control is invoked by the first application (Hwang noting the pop up keyboard / floating key pad 500 provided is based on the application when a user is ready to enter characters FIGS. 24-29 and [0118]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 20, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 3 (see above), wherein the first virtual screen is created on the electronic device running the first application (Shim at FIGS. 3-7 with virtual window generally (e.g., FIG. 3, 310; FIG. 9 and 910 or 930) or virtual screens/windows 31 or 32 produced on the display unit 130 of the device 110 based on the selected application A-G at [0064]-[0070]).
Claims 2, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Hwang as applied to claims 1, 3, and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Kim et al., US 2023/0168854 A1 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 2, Shim in view of Hwang discloses he method according to claim 1 (see above).
However, Shim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein the scaling ratio of the first window to the screen is a first ratio or a second ratio, wherein the first ratio is a ratio of a length of a long edge of the first window to a length of a long edge of the screen, and the second ratio is a ratio of a length of a short edge of the first window to a length of a short edge of the screen.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein the scaling ratio of the first window to the screen is a first ratio (FIGS. 4-8 and [0082]-[0084] and [0087]-[0097] and FIGS. 10-14 and [0118]-[0128] x axis comparison) or a second ratio (FIGS. 4-8 and [0082]-[0084] and [0087]-[0097] and FIGS. 10-14 and [0118]-[0128] y axis comparison), wherein the first ratio is a ratio of a length of a long edge of the first window to a length of a long edge of the screen (FIGS. 4-8 and [0082]-[0084] and [0087]-[0097], and FIGS. 10-14 and [0118]-[0128] x axis comparison), and the second ratio is a ratio of a length of a short edge of the first window to a length of a short edge of the screen (FIGS. 4-8 and [0082]-[0084] and [0087]-[0097], and FIGS. 10-14 and [0118]-[0128] y axis comparison).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the application displaying method and apparatus of Shim in view of Hwang to incorporate the ratios producing the application display as disclosed by Kim because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, displaying application windows in accordance with various limitations. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve efficient transfer of application mirroring data based on the limitations of the display screens (see Kim at least at [0008]-[0017]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 3 (see above).
However, Shim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein a size and a position of the first virtual screen are consistent with a size and a position of the first window.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein a size and a position of the first virtual screen are consistent with a size and a position of the first window (Kim at FIGS. 4-8 and [0082]-[0084] and [0087]-[0097] and FIGS. 10-14 and [0118]-[0128] the reproduced size of the electronic device 101 (e.g., 1110, 1210, 1311, 1411) on the target display (e.g., 1020, 1120, 1220) is proportional and consistent with the original size and position (e.g., landscape/portrait) of the electronic device being mirrored).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the application displaying method and apparatus of Shim in view of Hwang to incorporate the size reproduction as disclosed by Kim because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, displaying application windows in accordance with various limitations of the display. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve efficient transfer of application mirroring data based on the limitations of the display screens (see Kim at least at [0008]-[0017]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, it is similar in scope to claim 5; therefore, claim 13 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 5 above.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Hwang as applied to claims 3 and 11 above, and further in view of Ignatchenko et al., US 2013/0147787 A1 (hereinafter “Ignatchenko”).
Regarding claim 9, Shim in view of Hwang discloses the method according to claim 3 (see above).
However, Shim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein a Z-order value of the first system control is greater than or equal to 2000 and less than or equal to 2999.
In the same field of endeavor, Ignatchenko discloses wherein a Z-order value of the first system control is greater than or equal to 2000 and less than or equal to 2999 (FIGS. 3A-3B and [0042], [0047], [0052]-[0054] and [0062]-[0063] describing the ordering and valuing in whatever manner desired by the programmer or designer of the system; note, as is commonly known, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to assign a Z-order value to any object or element in a graphical user interface for the commonly understood ability to properly retrieve and display the element in order of priority; noting, the z-order values assigned are merely a design choice without clear reference to a hierarchy and relational structure).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the applications display methods and apparatus of Shin in view of Hwang to incorporate the z-order values and hierarchy as disclosed by Ignatchenko because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, transfer of application data to be displayed and proper display thereof. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve the efficient transfer of media data from a source device to a target device to be displayed (see Ignatchenko at least at [0007]-[0012]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, it is similar in scope to claim 9; therefore, claim 17 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yook et al., US 2013/0332881 A1: FIGS. 6-11, [0075]-[0087], screen area dividing method for displaying multiple apps/programs with optional view area formed within the viewing area of a program;
Zhang, US 2017/0344253 A1: FIGS. 5-9B and 14, [0068] and [0114], describing notification messages resized in proportion to the window in which they are received;
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARVESH J. NADKARNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7562. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, Benjamin C. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/SARVESH J NADKARNI/Examiner, Art Unit 2629
/BENJAMIN C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2629