`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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 8 January 2026. Claims 1-23 and 25-49, 52, 70 have been canceled. Claims 24, 50-51, 53-69, 71-78 are pending and have been considered below.
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 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.
Claim(s) 24, 54, 58-60, 67, 72, 74, 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg et al. (US 8,954,521 B1) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0304715 A1) and further in view of Rezende et al. (WO 2012/172164 A1).
Claim 1.-23. (Cancelled)
Claim 24. Faaborg discloses a method, comprising:
executing, by an electronic device, a first task of a first application program; displaying, by the electronic device, a first window of the first task of the first application program, displaying a graphical element that represents an application (C 1 L 42-46) when a message is received, an image representing the messaging application is displayed on the full screen of the device, and message content is displayed in a window on the screen (C 6 L 45-56 Fig 1A, 7A),
in a full-screen mode such that the first window occupies an entire display screen of the electronic device, the image representing the application is clearly displayed on the whole screen (Fig 1A, 7A),
in response to (1) detecting, by the electronic device, a banner notification is to be displayed … displaying the banner notification in a single-line form in a first region of the first window in a floating manner, the content of the message is displayed as a single line of text and an ellipsis may (may implies not necessarily) be displayed to indicate one or more portions of additional content are available (C 24 L 15-27),
wherein the banner notification in the single-line form further comprises a subset of full content of the banner notification, the content in the notification in both 170 and 172 of Fig 7A and 7B have a subset of the full content as demonstrated by the notification in 174 not having an ellipsis indicating there is more content not displayed (C 24 L 15-41 Fig 7A-7C),
in response to detecting, by the electronic device, a preset touch operation of the user on the banner notification in the single-line form, displaying, by the electronic device, detailed information about the banner notification in a second region of the first window or a third region of a third window, wherein the detailed information comprises the full content of the banner notification, an additional portion of the message may be displayed (C 24 L 28-41) upon receipt of user input and since no ellipses displayed in 7C, then there is no more text to display (C 24 L 56-64, C 25 L 20-34 Fig 7A-7C),
wherein a first size of the first region is different from a second size of the second region, or the first size of the first region is different from a third size of the third region, each of the expanded windows of the message notification are of a different size from the first notification (C 24 L 56-64, C 25 L 20-34),
displaying, by the electronic device, a second window of the first task of the first application program in a non-full-screen mode, each of the notifications are associated with the image related to the messaging application displayed on the screen (C 6 L 45-56, C 24 L 28-41, C 24 L 56-64, C 25 L 20-34 Fig 1A, 7A),
in response to detecting, by the electronic device, a second banner notification that is to be displayed, displaying, by the electronic device, the second banner notification in a multi-line form concurrently with the second window of the first task, a plurality of notifications are displayed concurrently, at least one notification in multi-line form (C 29 L 46-57).
Faaborg does not disclose determining, by the electronic device, that the first window is in the full-screen mode based on that a window size of the first window is equal to a size of the entire display screen of the electronic device, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Park discloses the event UI provides an adjusted user interface different from a default UI of a second application, and the event UI is provided for indicating the event in response to determining whether a first application is in full-screen mode (P 0011) the size of the event UI and the amount of the displayed information may be changed depending on a setting or the amount of event information, so the event UI may display a whole or part of the information of the event (P 0042) in a specified form (pop-up window or status and/or notification bar (P 0057) each different user interface form depending on the application currently running and the received event type (P 0059) the event UI displays information about the occurring event in the form of a text, a word or a subtitle (P 0080). Furthermore, Park discloses that the event UI displays a single line of the event data (Fig 4). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg and Park one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine determining, by the electronic device, that the first window is in the full-screen mode based on that a window size of the first window is equal to a size of the entire display screen of the electronic device with the teachings of Faaborg with the motivation to reduce the disturbance to a user when receiving a second message while executing a first application (Park: P 0006, 0007).
Faaborg does not disclose wherein, in the full-screen mode, a user calls a navigation bar and a status bar through a sliding operation, as disclosed in the claims. In the same field of invention, Rezende discloses in response to an event a notification bar is presented (P 0043) a user may pull down the notification bar to display levels of information (P 0044) that may include a status bar with information on the remaining amount available for use in the user's data plan, an indication of the serving network, an indication of signal strength, an indication of one or more currently connected and/or accessible networks, an indication of an available application (e.g., an alarm application), and/or the like (P 0045). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein, in the full-screen mode, a user calls a navigation bar and a status bar through a sliding operation with the teachings of Faaborg and Park with the motivation to reduce the disturbance to a user when receiving a second message while executing a first application (Park: P 0006, 0007).
Faaborg does not disclose in response to … (2) determining that the first window is in the full-screen mode, [displaying the banner notification in a single- line form in a first region of the first window in a floating manner], as disclosed in the claims. However, Park discloses the event UI provides an adjusted user interface different from a default UI of a second application, and the event UI is provided for indicating the event in response to determining whether a first application is in full-screen mode (P 0011) the size of the event UI and the amount of the displayed information may be changed depending on a setting or the amount of event information, so the event UI may display a whole or part of the information of the event (P 0042) in a specified form (pop-up window or status and/or notification bar (P 0057) each different user interface form depending on the application currently running and the received event type (P 0059) the event UI displays information about the occurring event in the form of a text, a word or a subtitle (P 0080). Furthermore, Park discloses that the event UI displays a single line of the event data (Fig 4). The form of the display of the event notification is clearly determined by whether the executing application is in full-screen mode. Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine in response to … (2) determining that the first window is in the full-screen mode, [displaying the banner notification in a single- line form in a first region of the first window in a floating manner] with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to reduce the disturbance to a user when receiving a second message while executing a first application (Park: P 0006, 0007).
Faaborg does not disclose wherein the message application program is different from the first application program, as disclosed in the claims. However, Faaborg discloses the UI module receives notification information and/or content corresponding to one or more notifications from a plurality of applications for output to a user (C 5 L 42-54, C 15 L 9-22) the one or more application may receive an incoming notification from an external source, which may be an email or messaging application, social media communication, a calendar reminder, a travel-related communication, a game-related communication, a stock-related communication, or a weather-related communication (C 15 L 9-22). While Faaborg discloses that the notification received is related to the displayed application, Faaborg further discloses that notifications may be received for one or more applications from external sources. Park discloses executing a first application and indicating an event received from a second application (P 0010). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the message application program is different from the first application program with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to reduce the disturbance to a user when receiving a second message while executing a first application (Park: P 0006, 0007).
Faabord does not disclose wherein the banner notification in the single-line form comprises an application icon of the message application program that generated the banner notification, wherein the banner notification in the single-line form further comprises a sender name of a message sender in the banner notification, as disclosed in the claims. However, Park discloses a notification application icon, name of the sender and information about the notification are displayed in the notification area (P 0062 Fig 4) the event UI displays information about the occurring event in the form of a text, a word or a subtitle (P 0080). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the banner notification in the single-line form comprises an application icon of the message application program that generated the banner notification, wherein the banner notification in the single-line form further comprises a sender name of a message sender in the banner notification with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to reduce the disturbance to a user when receiving a second message while executing a first application (Park: P 0006, 0007).
Faabord does not disclose the detailed information further comprises the at least one of the application icon of the message application program that generates the banner notification, a name of the message application program, a time at which the banner notification is generated, or a topic of the banner notification, as disclosed in the claims. However, Park discloses the message in multi-line form displays an application icon of the messaging application and a name of the sender (P 0066, 0070 Fig 5A-5B) the event UI displays information about the occurring event in the form of a text, a word or a subtitle (P 0080). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the detailed information further comprises the at least one of the application icon of the message application program that generates the banner notification, a name of the message application program, a time at which the banner notification is generated, or a topic of the banner notification with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to reduce the disturbance to a user when receiving a second message while executing a first application (Park: P 0006, 0007).
Claims 25.-49. (Cancelled)
Claim 52. Canceled.
Claim 54. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, and Faaborg further discloses the displaying the detailed information comprising: in response to the detecting the preset touch operation of the user on the banner notification in the single-line form, displaying the detailed information about the banner notification and at least one operation option on the banner notification, a notification may receive user input to implement further actions or functionality (C 9 L 19-30).
Claims 58. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 54, and Faaborg further discloses the banner notification including video information of a video, wherein the at least one operation option on the banner notification includes a download option, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the download option by the user, downloading the video, or wherein the at least one operation option on the banner notification includes a play option, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the play option by the user, displaying a sixth window for playing the video, the message content associated with any given message may include textual content and/or one or more other forms of media content (e.g., image content, video content, audio content) (C 5 L 18-21) to be played on a media player (C 10 L 49-56).
Claims 59. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, and Faaborg further discloses the banner notification further including a first control, wherein the preset touch operation of the user on the banner notification in the single-line form is a tap operation on the first control, the user may initiate a tap or a swipe gesture at a region that corresponds with graphical window (C 25 L 54-57).
Claims 60. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, and Faaborg further discloses the preset touch operation of the user on the banner notification in the single-line form being an operation of sliding downward the banner notification in the single-line form or a tap operation, the user may initiate a tap or a swipe gesture at a region that corresponds with graphical window or a swipe gesture (C 25 L 54-67).
Claim(s) 67, 72 is/are directed to electronic device claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 24, 54 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 70. Canceled.
Claim(s) 74 is/are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 24 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 77. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, and Faaborg discloses wherein a first width of the first region for displaying the banner notification in the single-line form is less than a width of the first window in the full- screen mode, the notifications in Figures 10A-10B are clearly less than the width of the graphical element image representing the first application (C 28 L 37-58).
Claim(s) 50-51, 53, 61-62, 64-66, 68, 69, 71, 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg et al. (US 8,954,521 B1) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0304715 A1) and Rezende et al. (WO 2012/172164 A1) and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2014/0351744 A1).
Claim 50. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faabord does not disclose wherein the banner notification in the single-line form is displayed at a top portion or a bottom portion of the first window in the floating manner based on the banner notification to be displayed in a landscape mode, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Jeon discloses a the electronic device can create and output a notification item corresponding to specific notification information in a predetermined display type (P 0032) at least one of amount and sort of the notification information to be displayed on the notification item according to a change of a display type or a display form can be controlled (P 0034) the list type in which the notification item is displayed by a desired length in the longitudinal direction by the electronic device when the electronic device is arranged in a portrait direction is determined, the list type can be implemented in the form in which one notification item is displayed by a desired length in a landscape direction when the electronic device is arranged in the landscape direction (P 0063). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the banner notification in the single-line form is displayed at a top portion or a bottom portion of the first window in the floating manner based on the banner notification to be displayed in a landscape mode with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claims 51. Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon disclose the method of claim 50, and Faaborg further discloses wherein a first width of the first region or a second width of the second region is smaller than a width of the first window, Figures 9A-9C and 10A-10B clearly show that the windows in Faaborg that are analogous to the claimed first region or second region have smaller widths of the window that is analogous to the first window.
Claims 53. Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon disclose the method of claim 51, and Faaborg further discloses wherein the first window and the third window are a same application window of the first application program, the application is a weather application displayed on the whole screen (C 26 L 9-10, Fig 8) a single line of text of a first portion of a weather notification is displayed over the graphical element of the weather application, the text indicating “WEATHER UPDATE” (C 27 L 11-21, Fig 9A).
Claims 61. Faaborg, Park, and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faabord does not disclose notification in the single-line form by the user, displaying an application window of the message application program that generated the banner notification, as disclosed in the claims. However, Faaborg discloses the user may initiate a tap or a swipe gesture at a region that corresponds with graphical window or a swipe gesture (C 25 L 54-67). In the same field of invention, Jeon discloses various notifications are displayed (P 0143, 0144) and in response to a user operation on a notification and the application related to the notification is opened (P 0145, Fig 11A). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the method further comprising: in response to detecting a tap operation on the banner notification in the single-line form by the user, displaying an application window of the message application program that generated the banner notification with the teachings of Faaborg, Park, and Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claims 62. Faaborg, Park, and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faaborg does not disclose the method further comprising: in response to detecting of an operation by the user of sliding the banner notification in the single-line form to left or right, deleting the banner notification in the single-line form, as disclosed in the claims. However, Faaborg discloses the user may initiate a tap or a swipe gesture at a region that corresponds with graphical window or a swipe gesture (C 25 L 54-67). In the same field of invention, Jeon discloses a notification may be removed via a touch gesture (P 0127). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the method further comprising: in response to detecting of an operation by the user of sliding the banner notification in the single-line form to left or right, deleting the banner notification in the single-line form with the teachings of Faaborg, Park, and Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claims 64. Faaborg, Park, and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faaborg does not disclose the method further comprising: in response to detecting an operation by the user of sliding downward the banner notification in the single-line form, displaying a notification panel, wherein the notification panel comprises the banner notification, as disclosed in the claims. However, Faaborg discloses the user may initiate a tap or a swipe gesture at a region that corresponds with graphical window or a swipe gesture (C 25 L 54-67). In the same field of invention, Jeon further discloses various notifications are displayed (P 0143, 0144) and in response to a user operation on a notification and the application related to the notification is opened (P 0145, Fig 11A). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the method further comprising: in response to detecting an operation by the user of sliding downward the banner notification in the single-line form, displaying a notification panel, wherein the notification panel comprises the banner notification with the teachings of Faaborg, Park, and Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claims 65. Faaborg, Park, and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faaborg does not disclose in response to the banner notification in the single-line form being displayed longer than a preset duration threshold, stopping displaying of the banner notification in the single-line form in the first window in the floating manner, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Jeon further discloses a type of displaying the notification item can be determined according to at least one of a sort of applications, importance of the notification information, an amount or magnitude of the notification information, time lapsed after the notification information is created, number of notifications, number of the notification items displayed on the notification screen, and a size of a remaining space in which the notification item is not displayed on the notification screen (P 0032) if an event occurs and if there is no occurrence of the event for the termination of the notification screen and a predetermined time lapses (P 0090) and alarm can be removed (P 0109) or the size of the alarm reduced and moved to a less prominent place (P 0114) and a notification application can be removed when a desired time elapses (P 0170). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine in response to the banner notification in the single-line form being displayed longer than a preset duration threshold, stopping displaying of the banner notification in the single-line form in the first window in the floating manner with the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claims 66. Faaborg, Park, and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faaborg does not disclose wherein the first window of the first task in the full- screen mode is different from a desktop window, as disclosed in the claims. However, Faaborg discloses a computing device may be a desktop computer, a tablet computer, a smart television platform, a camera, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a server, or a mainframe (C 19 L 16-19). In the same field of invention, Jeon discloses a type of displaying the notification item can be determined according to at least one of a sort of applications, importance of the notification information, an amount or magnitude of the notification information, time lapsed after the notification information is created, number of notifications, number of the notification items displayed on the notification screen, and a size of a remaining space in which the notification item is not displayed on the notification screen (P 0032). That is, Faaborg discloses that the computing device may be a desktop computer or a device with a different type of screen, and Jeon discloses that the type of displaying the notification item depends on a size of a remaining space in which the notification item is not displayed on the notification screen, which would be different for the different types of devices in Faaborg. Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the first window of the first task in the full- screen mode is different from a desktop window with the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claim(s) 68, 69, 71 is/are directed to electronic device claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 50, 51, 53 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 75. Faaborg, Park, Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faaborg does not disclose wherein the subset of the full content of the banner notification is different from the topic of the banner notification, and wherein the subset of the full content of the banner notification and the at least one of the application icon of the message application program, the name of the message application program, the time at which the banner notification was generated, or the topic of the banner notification are displayed in the first region as a part of the banner notification in the single-line form, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Jeon discloses a status bar region (P 0097, 0156-0157 Fig 6, 13) includes images with a predetermined size corresponding to the notification item, including an image of notifying of a reception of a message (envelope), an image of notifying of a reception of a voice call in an absence of a user (phone handset), an image of notifying of an update and the like can be displayed in the status bar region and pieces of information displayed in the status bar region can be synchronized with the notification item and can be displayed while the status bar region is displayed (P 0109). It is clear that the status bar includes information about the received notifications, but only displays icons informing the user of the type of notification, i.e. an envelope indicating a message and a phone handset for missed phone call, but does not provide information as to the topic of each notification. Furthermore, Jeon discloses a notification can be expanded to display more detailed information regarding the notification, wherein the display includes only the status bar (with the indication of the notification), a function shortcut region, a “Clear all” option, and the details of the notification (P 0120, 0129-0130 Fig 8-9) in a display scheme in which the notification screen gradually comes down in an opposite direction from the status bar region according to a calling of the notification screen, when the notification screen is arranged on the display unit (P 0158 Fig 13) the display unit can output the notification region in which only the status bar region, the short-cut function region, and the third type notification region are displayed (P 0161 Fig 14). That is, the status bar can be displayed without the notification screen being displayed, and then the notification screen can gradually appear in a (downward) direction from the status bar, and finally, the details of a notification can be displayed along with the status bar (and a function shortcut region and a “Clear all” option). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Jeon, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the subset of the full content of the banner notification is different from the topic of the banner notification, and wherein the subset of the full content of the banner notification and the at least one of the application icon of the message application program, the name of the message application program, the time at which the banner notification was generated, or the topic of the banner notification are displayed in the first region as a part of the banner notification in the single-line form with the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claim(s) 55-57, 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg et al. (US 8,954,521 B1) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0304715 A1) and Rezende et al. (WO 2012/172164 A1) and further in view of Kubala et al. (US 2006/0218232 A1).
Claim 55. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 54, but Faaborg does not disclose the at least one operation option on the banner notification including a reply option, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the reply option by the user, displaying a fourth window, the fourth window including a reply messaging window, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Kubala discloses a message alert is displayed (P 0054) that includes an option for a user to select to reply to the message, and a window is opened in which a user may compose a reply message (P 0056, Fig llB). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Kubala, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the at least one operation option on the banner notification including a reply option, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the reply option by the user, displaying a fourth window, the fourth window including a reply messaging window with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to allow Faaborg to be more responsive to the user’s needs by allowing the user to address the displayed notification and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Claim 56. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 54, but Faaborg does not disclose the at least one operation option on the banner notification including a paging option, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the paging option by the user, displaying a fifth window, the fifth window including a paging window to page the message sender in the banner notification, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Kubala discloses a user is alerted to the receipt of a message (P 0009) the messages supported in Kubala include various types of electronic messages, e.g., text messages, instant messages, fax messages, voicemail messages, video messages, audio messages, and other types of messages (P 0032) and the alert is displayed as an alert window and provides a user with the ability to send and/or reply to a received message (P 0055). While Kubala does not disclose that a pager message is included in the types of messages, Kubala is directed to many disclosed types of messages and to messages in general. Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Kubala, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the at least one operation option on the banner notification including a paging option, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the paging option by the user, displaying a fifth window, the fifth window including a paging window to page the message sender in the banner notification with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to allow Faaborg to be more responsive to the user’s needs by allowing the user to address the displayed notification and to allow notifications of different types to be implemented and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Claims 57. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 54, but Faaborg does not disclose the at least one operation option on the banner notification including an ignore option or a delete option, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the ignore option or the delete option by the user, stopping displaying of the banner notification in the single-line form in the first window in the floating manner; and in response to detecting a status bar option by the user, displaying the status bar, the status bar including the application icon in the banner notification in the single-line form, as disclosed in the claims. However, Faaborg discloses in response to a received message, an icon related to the message and the type of application is displayed, e.g. a messaging application or a weather application (C 9 L 41-51, C 26 L 9-10, Fig 7A-7C, 9A-9C) and Park discloses the event UI is displayed in a specified form such as a notification bar (P 0057). In the same field of invention, Kubala discloses a user is alerted to the receipt of a message (P 0009) the messages supported in Kubala include various types of electronic messages, e.g., text messages, instant messages, fax messages, voicemail messages, video messages, audio messages, and other types of messages (P 0032) and the alert is displayed as an alert window (P 0055) with "CANCEL" button that allows the user to continue to close the e-mail message without creating a reply message (P 0057, Fig 11C). Kubala discloses dismissing a notification window that may be dismissed by a user selecting a “cancel” button. Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Kubala, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the at least one operation option on the banner notification including an ignore option or a delete option, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the ignore option or the delete option by the user, stopping displaying of the banner notification in the single-line form in the first window in the floating manner; and in response to detecting a status bar option by the user, displaying a status bar, the status bar including the application icon in the banner notification in the single-line form with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to allow Faaborg to be more responsive to the user’s needs by allowing the user to address the displayed notification and to allow notifications to be dismissed when the user ch and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Claim(s) 73 is/are directed to electronic device claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 55 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 63, 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg et al. (US 8,954,521 B1) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0304715 A1) and Rezende et al. (WO 2012/172164 A1) and further in view of Lemay et al. (US 2015/0363066 A1).
Claims 63. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faaborg does not disclose the method further comprising: in response to detecting of an operation by the user of sliding upward the banner notification in the single-line form, stopping displaying of the banner notification in the single- line form in the first window in the floating manner; and in response to detecting a status bar option by the user, displaying a status bar, the status bar including the application icon in the banner notification in the single-line form, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Lemay discloses a user interface displays a status bar (Fig 12E) a user makes a contact with the display to display an information bar opaquely over the status bar (P 0322, Fig 12F) in response to a second contact by the user, the status bar is redisplayed and the information bar is not displayed (P 0323). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Lemay, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the method further comprising: in response to detecting of an operation by the user of sliding upward the banner notification in the single-line form, stopping displaying of the banner notification in the single- line form in the first window in the floating manner; and in response to detecting a status bar option by the user, displaying a status bar, the status bar including the application icon in the banner notification in the single-line form with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claim 78. Faaborg, Park and Rezende discloses the method of claim 24, but Faaborg does not disclose in response to detecting an operation of sliding upward the banner notification in the single-line form that is performed by the user, stopping the displaying the banner notification in the single-line form in the floating manner; and displaying the status bar, wherein the status bar comprises the application icon of the message application program, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Lemay discloses a user interface displays a status bar (Fig 12E) a user makes a contact with the display to display an information bar opaquely over the status bar (P 0322, Fig 12F) in response to a second contact by the user, the status bar is redisplayed and the information bar is not displayed (P 0323). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende and Lemay, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine in response to detecting an operation of sliding upward the banner notification in the single-line form that is performed by the user, stopping the displaying the banner notification in the single-line form in the floating manner; and displaying the status bar, wherein the status bar comprises the application icon of the message application program with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174).
Claim(s) 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg et al. (US 8,954,521 B1) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0304715 A1) and Rezende et al. (WO 2012/172164 A1) and further in view of Agarwal et al. (US 2014/0195700 A1).
Claim 76. Faaborg, Park and Rezende disclose the method of claim 24, but Faabord does not disclose wherein a priority of the banner notification is based on at least one of whether the message application program generating the banner notification is a preset application program, whether the message sender in the banner notification is a preset contact, whether the banner notification includes a keyword, whether the banner notification is generated within a preset time period, or a criticalness of the banner notification, wherein whether the banner notification preempts another banner notification is based on the priority of the banner notification and a priority of the another banner notification, and wherein the displaying the detailed information about the banner notification comprises displaying reply options for the banner notification based on the priority of the banner notification, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Agarwal discloses receiving a task request from a user (requestor) (P 0036) in response, the system sends a proactive or unsolicited notification to the user (P 0037) the proactive notification can be an unsolicited or preemptive alert associated with the request intent or associated with a current task (P 0122) and are based on the current context defined as circumstances associated with the notification, including the situation that occurred during or proximate to the time or the interrupt request, preferences or user history of the task requestor, information based on the interaction between the computing system and the task requestor, or a combination (P 0148) and prioritized based on current context (P 0152). Therefore, considering the teachings of Faaborg, Park, Rezende and Agarwal, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein a priority of the banner notification is based on at least one of whether the message application program generating the banner notification is a preset application program, whether the message sender in the banner notification is a preset contact, whether the banner notification includes a keyword, whether the banner notification is generated within a preset time period, or a criticalness of the banner notification, wherein whether the banner notification preempts another banner notification is based on the priority of the banner notification and a priority of the another banner notification, and wherein the displaying the detailed information about the banner notification comprises displaying reply options for the banner notification based on the priority of the banner notification with the teachings of Faaborg, Park and Rezende with the motivation to help the user to understand a meaning of a notification item more easily and intuitively by diversifying a display manner according to a property of notification information generated by the electronic device, and help the user quickly access and understand a variety of information that the user desires, through the notification screen (Jeon: P 0174) and to improve presentation efficiency of the system notification (Agarwal: P 0158).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
Park does not disclose that determining full-screen mode causes displaying a single-line banner notification that is a subset of full content of a banner notification for a message application program.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Park discloses that a first application is displayed on the screen of a device. The device receives notification of an event associated with a second application. A determination is made whether to configure an event user interface (UI) or to provide a default UI of the second application based on at least one of UI state information of the first application and setting information for configuring the event UI (P 0010) and determining to configure the event user interface (UI) if the first application is executed in a full-screen mode, the event UI providing an adjusted user interface different from a default UI of the second application (P 0011). Furthermore, if the first application is executed in a full-screen mode, the event UI providing an adjusted user interface different from a default UI of the second application Claim 11).
That is, it is clear that Park discloses making a determination whether a first application window displayed on the screen of a device is in full-screen mode, and this meets the requirement of the limitation “determining full-screen mode”. Park further discloses based on determining if the displayed window of the first application is in full-screen mode, adjusting the event UI of the second application from a default UI of the second application. This meets the requirement of the claim directed to displaying a notification window with certain characteristics.
Park further discloses the size of the event UI and the amount of the displayed information may be changed depending on a setting or the amount of event information, so the event UI may display a whole or part of the information of the event (P 0042) in a specified form (pop-up window or status and/or notification bar (P 0057) each different user interface form depending on the application currently running and the received event type (P 0059) the event UI displays information about the occurring event in the form of a text, a word or a subtitle (P 0080). Furthermore, Park discloses that the event UI displays a single line of the event data (Fig 4).
It is clear that both the notification UI is adjusted in response to the window of the first application being in full-screen mode and the adjustments made include size and amount of displayed information, mode (pop-up window, status and/or notification bar). Specifically, one of the adjustments is identifies as displaying the notification UI as a notification bar, but not specifically as a single-line notification bar.
Per the rejection, primary reference Faaborg discloses displaying a notification as a single line of text in a message window, but Faaborg does not disclose that the message window is displayed with a single line of text if the displayed application is in full screen mode.
The applicant argues:
Rezende does not disclose the claimed "wherein, in the full-screen mode, a user calls a navigation bar through a sliding operation."
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner combined Rezende only for the operation of displaying a bar, particularly a status bar, through a sliding operation. Per the rejection, Rezende explicitly discloses this operation. Furthermore, Rezende discloses navigation functionality. For example, in Figure 3A, a user may select a message received. Figure 3B shows a user may select a call or play option.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON at telephone number (571)270-1696.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:30 am Eastern to 5:30 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar B Paula, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2145 4/28/2026
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights