Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 19/085,544

ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SCREEN OF DISPLAY IN ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Examiner
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
Art Unit
2628
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
589 granted / 816 resolved
+10.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -7% lift
Without
With
+-6.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 816 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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. Claims 1-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20200387540). As to claim 1, Chen discloses an electronic device comprising: a display (Fig. 2(208), [0030]); at least one processor (Fig. 2(202), [0030]); and memory (Fig. 2(214)) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively ([0030]), cause the electronic device to: based on identifying a selection of a screen recording function while displaying a plurality of windows displaying execution of a plurality of applications on a screen of the display, perform the screen recording function for the screen of the display displaying the plurality of windows (Figs. 4A-4C, [0045]: video desktop recording 118 (screen recording function) capturing activities on a desktop); based on detecting a focused window among the plurality of windows while performing the screen recording function for the screen, record the focused window and an unfocused window (Fig. 3(330): identify a target window (focused window), Figs. 4A-4C, [0045]: detects the presence of one or more windows depicted within a video desktop recording 118 capturing activities on a desktop and identifies a target window (focused window) from among one or more windows; Note: other windows besides target window are interpreted as unfocused windows); and based on identifying a termination of the screen recording function, store a video in which the focused window and the unfocused window among the plurality of windows are recorded in the memory (Figs. 4A-4C, [0040]: identifies the target window from among the one or more windows detected within the video desktop recording based on closing a window, [0042]: store the updated video desktop recording 118 back in the data store 116, [0043] – [0045]). As to claim 2, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: detect, as the focused window, at least one of a window activated and in use by a selection of a user, a window on which a cursor (Fig. 4A(410): pointer) displayed to control the electronic device through an external device connected to the electronic device is located, or a window on which a gaze of the user lingers for a predetermined time, among the plurality of windows (Fig. 4A, [0047]: top-most window or active window due to selection by the user using a pointer 410; Note: since there is “or” between two items listed, Examiner can choose one item from the list to reject the entire limitation). As to claim 3, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: record a background image displayed as a background of the plurality of windows, while recording the focused window and the unfocused window among the plurality of windows (Fig. 6, [0045]: identifies a target window (focused window) from among one or more windows, [0051]: determines a target window among a plurality of windows 604, 606, 608, 610. The computing device 102 determines the top-most window by submitting a query, where the query requests enumeration of windows present on the desktop displayed on the computing device 102. Note that Fig. 6 shows background image displayed as a background of the plurality of windows). As to claim 4, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: record by expanding a size of the focused window ([0039]: within the video desktop recording, if one of the windows is in a maximized state, the computing device 102 designates that window as the target window (focused window); Note: “maximized state” interpreted as “expanding a size”) and reducing a size of the unfocused window among the plurality of windows ([0038]: within the video desktop recording, at least one of the windows is in the restored state refers to a window that is not in a maximized state; Note: “restored state that is not in a maximized state” interpreted as “reducing a size” and a restored window (not in a maximized state) is interpreted as a unfocused window). As to claim 5, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: record, while displaying the focused window on the screen of the display and not displaying the unfocused window among the plurality of windows (Fig. 7, [0052]: window 702 in a maximized state and automatically designated as a target window (focused window)). As to claim 6, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: based on identifying a selection of screen capture while displaying the plurality of windows on the screen of the display, detect the focused window among the plurality of windows and store the focused window and the unfocused window as an image (Fig. 4A, 6, [0038], [0051]: the computing device 102 determines the top-most window by submitting a query to the operating system executing on the computing device 102, where query requests enumeration of windows present on the desktop displayed on the computing device 102. Therefore, the plurality of windows stored as an image. Note: a target window (focused window) is identified among one or more windows as described in [0045]; other windows beside target window are interpreted as unfocused windows). As to claim 7, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: store the image in which a size of the focused window is expanded ([0039]: within the video desktop recording, if one of the windows is in a maximized state, the computing device 102 designates that window as the target window (focused window); Note: “maximized state” interpreted as “expanding a size”) and a size of the unfocused window is reduced among the plurality of windows ([0038]: within the video desktop recording, at least one of the windows is in the restored state refers to a window that is not in a maximized state; Note: “restored state that is not in a maximized state” interpreted as “reducing a size” and a restored window (not in a maximized state) is interpreted as a unfocused window). As to claim 8, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: store the image in which the focused window is displayed on the screen of the display and not displaying the unfocused window among the plurality of windows ([0042]: if the user minimizes (not displaying) a first window and a second window is identified as a new target window; Note: second window becomes new target window (focused window) and minimized first window becomes unfocused window which is not displaying). As to claims 11-15, it is the operation performed by the claims 1-5. Please see claims 1-5 for detail analysis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200387540) in view of O’leary et al. (US 20230098395) and in further view of Krasadakis (US 20170212583). As to claim 9, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, based on the electronic device, cause the electronic device to: while performing the screen recording function for the display displaying the plurality of windows according to a selection of the screen recording function, perform the screen recording function, while detecting, as the focused window, at least one of a window selected by a controller communication-connected to the electronic device, a window selected among the plurality of windows (Figs. 4A-4C, [0045], [0047] – [0048]: user selects target window (focused window) among a plurality of windows). Chen does not specifically teach a head mounted display (HMD) device, performing the screen recording function for the display displaying the plurality of windows in a three-dimensional space, and a window selected by a hand motion of a user, or a window on which a gaze of the user lingers for a predetermined time. O’leary teaches a head mounted display (HMD) device ([0559]: head mounted display) and performing the screen recording function for the display displaying the plurality of windows in a three-dimensional space (Fig. 6A, [0113]: “three dimensional” scene). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s electronic device by incorporating O’leary’ idea of using a head mounted display device in order to provide a user hands-free operation. Chen (as modified by O’leary) do not explicitly teach a window selected by a hand motion of a user, or a window on which a gaze of the user lingers for a predetermined time. Krasadakis teaches a window selected by a hand motion of a user, or a window on which a gaze of the user lingers for a predetermined time (Fig. 3, [0057]: gaze 306 causes the UI window to come into focus, [0070]: gaze detector 134 performs a check to see whether a threshold amount of time has elapsed; if the threshold amount of time has been met, the UI window is brought into focus or activated. Note: since there is “or” between two items listed, Examiner can choose one item from the list to reject the entire limitation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Chen (as modified by O’leary) by adapting Krasadakis’ idea of selecting window by gaze in order to provide a user more flexibility. As to claim 10, Chen teaches the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: record a background of the plurality of windows as a background image, while recording the focused window and the unfocused window among the plurality of windows (Fig. 6, [0045]: identifies a target window (focused window) from among one or more windows, [0051]: determines a target window among a plurality of windows 604, 606, 608, 610. The computing device 102 determines the top-most window by submitting a query, where the query requests enumeration of windows present on the desktop displayed on the computing device 102. Note that Fig. 6 shows background image displayed as a background of the plurality of windows). Chen does not expressly teach record the three-dimensional space displayed as a background of the plurality of windows as a background image. O’leary teaches record the three-dimensional space displayed as a background of the plurality of windows as a background image (Fig. 6A, [0113]: “three dimensional” scene). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s electronic device by incorporating O’leary’ idea of including three-dimensional space in order to improve quality of displaying plurality of windows. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. a) Choi et al. (US 20150220215) teaches record by expanding a size of the focused window and reducing a size of the unfocused window among the plurality of windows (Fig. 3, [0046], [0052] – [0053]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFROZA Y CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-1543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571)272-7677. 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. /AFROZA CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 20, 2025
Application Filed
Nov 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 29, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 29, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 27, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591337
AGGREGATED LIKELIHOOD OF UNINTENTIONAL TOUCH INPUT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588239
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ROUTING OF ELECTRICAL CONDUCTORS OVER NEUTRALIZED POWER FETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585345
DETECTION DEVICE WITH THERMAL PROTECTION ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585353
TRACKPAD ACTUATOR CONFIGURATIONS FOR INPUT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581992
INSULATION MODULE AND GATE DRIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (-6.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 816 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month