DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
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
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites “further cause the electronic device to: select the at least one screen from among the plurality of screens based on a priority, a recent execution of a respective application, a designated area of the first display or a selection input”, however is no predicate in the claimed language with regarding to a recent execution of a respective application, a designated area of the first display or a selection input”. Same deficiency applies to claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knarr et al. (US 20200320906 A1), further in view of Lin (US 20200348799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Knarr teaches an electronic device comprising: display circuitry including a first display and a second display; (Fig. 3A: first display 320. Second display 315. Para 74)
memory storing instructions; and at least one processor including a processing circuit, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: (Para 5)
based on the electronic device being in an unfolded state, control the display circuitry to display, on the first display, a first task bar and respective screens corresponding to each of a plurality of running applications, (Para 88. Fig. 6: Home screen application, and map application with a plurality of application icons in the unfolded phone with the app does not support full screen layout. The taskbar is the bottom three buttons)
generate at least one icon based on the electronic device being changed from the unfolded state to a folded state, and based on the electronic device being in the folded state, control the display circuitry to display, on the second display, at least one screen among the plurality of screens and a second task bar including the generated at least one icon. (Para 131. So the application displayed is the application that was last interacted with by the user on the non-foldable display 320 in the folded state. The bottom taskbar with icons is displayed when folded as shown in Fig. 6.)
However Knarr does not teach generate at least one icon related to the plurality of applications.
However Lin teaches generate at least one icon related to the plurality of applications. (para 4. So the taskbar with three icons can be back, home and recent. The recently run icon is related to the plurality of application)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Knarr with Lin to teach generate at least one icon related to the plurality of applications in order to enhance the GUI operation by adding taskbar with navigation capability to enhance the ease of using the mobile device.
Regarding claim 2, Knarr and Lin already teach the electronic device of claim 1,
And Knarr further teaches further comprising: a housing configured to be foldable in a partial area, wherein the housing includes a first housing structure, a second housing structure and a hinge structure, (Para 69-71. Fig. 3A-3B shows the first housing structure 360 and a second housing structure 365 with hinge 355 connected inbetween)
wherein the first housing structure and second housing structure are connected at either side of, and rotatable about, the hinge structure, (Para 69-71. Fig. 3A-3B shows the foldable device rotated about the hinge 355)
wherein the first display is disposed on a first surface of the first housing structure and a first surface of the second housing structure so that the partial area of the housing is foldable about the hinge structure, (Para 69-71. Fig. 3A-3B shows the foldable device rotated about the hinge 355. First display 320)
and wherein the second display is disposed on a second surface of the first housing structure or a second surface of the second housing structure. (Para 69, 73. Fig. 3A-3B. Second display 315)
Regarding claim 3, Knarr and Lin already teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Knarr further teaches wherein the first task bar comprises at least one of an icon of a favorite or frequently used application, an icon of a recently executed application, or a designated button, (The taskbar showing back, home and recent icons are still displayed on the first display 320 as shown in Fig. 6. The recent icon is an icon of a favorite or frequently used application, an icon of a recently executed application. The task bar with recent icon and home icon has shown to be taught by Lin in the rejection for claim 1.)
wherein the second task bar differs from the first task bar and comprises at least one icon generated by objects indicating the plurality of running applications displayed on the first display or a combination of the objects, (the taskbar showing back, home and recent icons are still displayed on the second display 315 as shown in Fig. 6. The recent icon is an icon of a favorite or frequently used application, an icon of a recently executed application. The second task bar differs from the first task as they occupy different display.)
and wherein the second task bar does not overlap the at least one screen among the plurality of screens and is displayed in a partial area of the second display. (Fig. 6 show the task bar is displayed in a partial area of the second display 315 and does not overlap the first display 320)
Regarding claim 4, Knarr and Lin already teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Knarr further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: select the at least one screen from among the plurality of screens based on a priority, a recent execution of a respective application, a designated area of the first display or a selection input. (Para 48, 88. The user can carry out touch input on the map screen in figure 6 which means the screen is selected with a priority which is the user touch input).
Regarding claim 8, Knarr and Lin already teach the electronic device of claim 1,
and Knarr further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: generate a pair icon corresponding to a combination of objects indicating two or more screens among the plurality of running applications on the first display; (Fig. 6: display 320: taskbar showing back, home and recent icons are still displayed as shown in Fig. 6. The recent icon is the pair icon which show recently running apps. The task bar with recent icon and home icon has shown to be taught by Lin in the rejection for claim 1.)
display the pair icon in the second task bar; and when the pair icon is selected, control the display circuitry to display the two or more application screens corresponding to the combination of the pair icon in divided areas, respectively, of the second display. (Fig. 3 and 6: display 315: taskbar showing back, home and recent icons are still displayed as shown in Fig. 6. The so recent icon can be used to display the recent running application on the foldable electronic device)
Regarding claim 9, Knarr and Lin already teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Knarr further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: display, on the second display, a screen of an application for an icon included in the second task bar by changing the at least one screen displayed on the second display to the screen of the application for the icon in response to a designated gesture input or a designated switching button input. (Fig. 6 shows the home button which would make the display return to home screen through touch input. The task bar with recent icon and home icon has shown to be taught by Lin in the rejection for claim 1.)
Regarding claim 10-13, refer to rejections for claim 1-4 respectively.
Regarding claim 18, refer to rejection for claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, refer to rejection for claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, refer to rejection for claim 1.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knarr et al. (US 20200320906 A1), in view of Lin (US 20200348799 A1), further in view of Cho (US 20210018957 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Knarr and Lin already teach the electronic device of claim 1,
And Knarr further teaches based on the electronic device changing from the folded state to the unfolded state: and control the display circuitry to maintain the execution of the plurality of applications and display the plurality of application screens on the first display. (Para 88. Fig. 6: Home screen application, and map application with a plurality of application icons in the unfolded phone with the app does not support full screen layout.)
However Knarr and Lin do not teach based on the electronic device changing from the folded state to the unfolded state: turn off the second display;
However Cho teaches based on the electronic device changing from the folded state to the unfolded state: turn off the second display; (Para 64. Fig. 2A shows the second display 240)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Knarr and Lin with Cho to teach based on the electronic device changing from the folded state to the unfolded state: turn off the second display in order to save battery usage to extend device usable during the day of use.
Regarding claim 14, refer to rejection for claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knarr et al. (US 20200320906 A1), in view of Lin (US 20200348799 A1), in view of Walkin et al. (US 20220326816 A1), Gupta et al. (20230297961 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Knarr and Lin already teach the electronic device of claim 1, However Knarr does not teach (i) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to, based on the electronic device being in the folded state: execute at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; reduce a size of the at least one screen displayed on the second display based on execution of the at least one another application; control the display circuitry to display a screen of the at least one another application on the second display so as not to overlap the at least one screen and the second task bar;
(ii) and add an icon indicating the at least one another application to the second task bar.
However with regarding to the aforementioned one (i),
Walkin teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to, based on the electronic device being in the folded state: execute at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; reduce a size of the at least one screen displayed on the second display based on execution of the at least one another application; control the display circuitry to display a screen of the at least one another application on the second display so as not to overlap the at least one screen and the second task bar; (Para 195, 199. So the first application in a full screen is changed to a split screen when a second application is opened.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Knarr and Lin with Walkin to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to, based on the electronic device being in the folded state: execute at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; reduce a size of the at least one screen displayed on the second display based on execution of the at least one another application; control the display circuitry to display a screen of the at least one another application on the second display so as not to overlap the at least one screen and the second task bar in order to produce the predictable result of GUI operation for a mobile device with the split screen feature as taught by Walkin which would further enhance the functionality of the device.
with regarding to the aforementioned one (ii),
Gupta teaches and add an icon indicating the at least one another application to the second task bar. (Para 31. Task bar showing currently running applications.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Knarr, Lin and Walkin with Gupta to teach add an icon indicating the at least one another application to the second task bar in order to enhance the visual experience of the GUI by adding a task bar indicating currently running apps.
Regarding claim 16, Knarr, Lin and Walkin already teaches the method of claim 15,
However Knarr, Lin and Walkin do not teach further comprising: generating another icon indicating the at least one other application; and adding the another icon to the second task bar.
However Gupta teaches generating another icon indicating the at least one other application; and adding the another icon to the second task bar. (Para 31. Task bar showing currently running applications.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Knarr and Walkin with Gupta to teach generating another icon indicating the at least one other application; and adding the another icon to the second task bar in order to enhance the visual experience of the GUI by adding a task bar indicating currently running apps.
Regarding claim 17, Knarr, Lin, Walkin and Gupta already teach the method of claim 16,
And Walkin further teaches further comprising: based on the device being in the folded state: executing at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; and stopping displaying the at least one screen on the second display and displaying a screen of the at least one another application on the second display. (Para 193-194. a full screen display mode affordance 4022. So the new application launched can be configured to run at a full screen display mode)
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knarr et al. (US 20200320906 A1), in view of Lin (US 20200348799 A1), further in view of Walkin et al. (US 20220326816 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Knarr and Lin already teach the electronic device of claim 1, However Knarr and Lin do not teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to, based on the electronic device being in the folded state: execute at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; and stop displaying the at least one screen on the second display and display a screen of the at least one another application on the second display.
However Walkin teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to, based on the electronic device being in the folded state: execute at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; and stop displaying the at least one screen on the second display and display a screen of the at least one another application on the second display. (Para 193-194. a full screen display mode affordance 4022. So the new application launched can be configured to run at a full screen display mode)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Knarr and Lin with Walkin to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to, based on the electronic device being in the folded state: execute at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; and stop displaying the at least one screen on the second display and display a screen of the at least one another application on the second display in order to produce the predictable GUI customizer according to user preference which would enhance the functionality of the mobile device.
Regarding claim 15, Knarr and Lin already teach the method of claim 10,
And Knarr already teaches based on the electronic device being in the folded state, screen of the application on the second display not to overlap the at least one screen and the second task bar. (Fig. 6 shows the map application in full screen does not overlap the at least one screen and the second task bar)
However Knarr and Lin do not teach further comprising, based on the electronic device being in the folded state: executing at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; reducing a size of the at least one screen displayed on the second display based on execution of the at least one another application; and displaying a screen of the at least one another application on the second display not to overlap the at least one screen and the second task bar.
However Walkin teaches further comprising, based on the electronic device being in the folded state: executing at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; reducing a size of the at least one screen displayed on the second display based on execution of the at least one another application; and displaying a screen of the at least one another application on the second display not to overlap the at least one screen and the second task bar. (Para 195, 199. So the first application in a full screen is changed to a split screen when a second application is opened.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Knarr and Lin with Walkin to teach based on the electronic device being in the folded state: executing at least one another application based on a designated gesture input or a designated button input; reducing a size of the at least one screen displayed on the second display based on execution of the at least one another application; and displaying a screen of the at least one another application on the second display not to overlap the at least one screen and the second task bar in order to produce the predictable result of GUI operation for a mobile device with the split screen feature as taught by Walkin which would further enhance the functionality of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/HANG LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626