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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office action is responsive to the amendment and reply filed on December 19, 2025 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims and specification are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1–4, 6–8, 13, 15, and 17–19 are now amended.
Claims 1–20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejections are maintained in spite of the amendment, and the Applicant’s argument that it overcomes the rejections (with no rationale provided), for the newly asserted reasons set forth in the rejection herein.
The objection to the title and to paragraph 155 is hereby withdrawn, in light of the amendments thereto.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), 112(b), and 112(d) are hereby withdrawn, responsive to the Applicant removing the new matter, indefinite language, and improper form from the claims.
Claim(s) 1, 3–8, 11–13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0015500 A1 (“Lee”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0142109 A1 (“Brown”), for similar reasons given in the previous Office Action. The rejection is only withdrawn as to claim 2, because claim 2 was amended in a way that substantially changes its scope.1
The Applicant contends that none of elements cited from Lee’s disclosure quite fall within the scope of the now-required “AI function entry interface,” (Response 12), and while the Examiner mostly agrees, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the same argument applies to the Brown reference.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that Brown is not a sufficient second reference for the rejection because “Brown does not disclose an interface that provides AI-driven, context-aware recommendations.” (Response 13). This is not a persuasive argument for two reasons.
With respect to the recommendations not being “context-aware,” this is simply untrue; Brown explicitly discloses that its recommendations and help aids concern on-screen elements and/or applications that the user is currently running. See Brown ¶¶ 71–72.
With respect to the recommendations not being “AI-driven,” the are absolutely zero limitations recited in any of these claims that require “AI” to “drive” the recommendations. Indeed, upon review the present specification, such a limitation would be considered new matter, or at least non-enabled. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term cannot be read to include subject matter the Applicant fails to disclose, inherently or explicitly, as such a reading would necessarily be unreasonable.
For these reasons, and because the amended version of claim 2 is obvious over newly cited prior art, the Applicant’s request for a notice of allowance is respectfully denied.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Lee and Brown teach claims 1, 3–8, 11–13, and 15–20.
Claim(s) 1, 3–8, 11–13, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0015500 A1 (“Lee”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0142109 A1 (“Brown”).
Claim 1
Lee teaches a method comprising:
displaying a first interface comprising a navigation bar that comprises a navigation button and at least one non-navigation button
Starting with FIG. 4(b), Lee teaches a mobile terminal configured to display an interface comprising a “navigation region” with at least three “navigations buttons” 402–406, “including a cancel button, a home button and a menu button that are implemented as a soft key type.” Lee ¶ 114.
In addition to these navigations buttons, Lee’s mobile terminal may further add to its navigation region at least one button for performing a function other than navigation. See Lee ¶ 120 and FIGS. 5 and 7. Three particularly relevant examples of this extra button include the quick voice button 640 shown in FIG. 6C, the volume button 670 shown in FIG. 6E, and the integrated access button shown in FIG. 6F. These will be discussed in detail below, together with their corresponding claim elements where relevant.
when the navigation button is triggered, performing at least one of: returning to a previous interface,
“[T]he cancel button can be used to . . . cancel an inputted user command,” Lee ¶ 112, thus returning the interface to a state prior to when the user inputted the command.
jumping to a home interface,
“The home button, which is common to the Android OS and the iOS, can be used for . . . a shift to a home screen, an inter job shift in a multi-tasking environment and the like.” Lee ¶ 112.
or invoking an interface of an application program accessed within a preset time up to a current moment;
“And, the menu button can be used to page an appropriate menu associated with a currently outputted screen.” Lee ¶ 112.
receiving a first input of a user on the at least one non-navigation button;
The mobile terminal detects when any button in the navigation area is “touched,” including all three examples of non-navigation buttons given above. See Lee ¶¶ 126, 128, and 129.
displaying, in response to the first input, a floating
The broadest reasonable interpretation of an “artificial intelligence (AI) function entry interface” includes any interface that “presents first recommended information based on one or more display objects displayed on the first interface.” This interpretation is reasonable because it uses the exact definition provided in the claim itself. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (ranking “the claims themselves” above the written description and the prosecution history in terms of “guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms”). The claimed “AI function entry interface,” in the context of the present application, does not require mathematical models or machine learning, because the present application fails to disclose any such models or machine learning algorithms.
In any case, Lee discloses at least two examples of floating interfaces that at least suggest (but do not necessarily anticipate) the claimed AI function entry interface:
Volume example: “If the volume button 670 is touched, referring to FIG. 6E, the controller can control a pair of volume adjust buttons (e.g., `+` button 672 and `-` button 674) to be displayed.” Lee ¶ 128. The speech-bubble appearance of these buttons in FIG. 6E at least suggests that it is a “floating” interface, albeit not necessarily one that displays recommended information as required for the AI function entry interface.
Integrated access example: “If the integrated access button is 680 touched, referring to FIG. 6F, the controller can control a plurality of buttons 682, 684 and 686, which are related to a plurality of functions linked to the integrated access button, respectively, to be displayed.” Lee ¶ 129. The integrated access example at least partially falls within the scope of the claimed AI function entry interface because it is overlaid onto the corner of the main interface above the navigation area, and because it displays information that was “may be manually set by a user” (and thus recommended for display by the user).
wherein the floating AI function entry interface presents first recommended information
Neither of the two examples mentioned above present recommended information based on one or more display objects displayed on the first interface, nor do they have an adjustable size or transparency.
Brown, however, teaches a method (FIG. 6) performed by a computer system 10, comprising:
receiving a first input of a user on the at least one non-navigation button;
At block 72, the computer system 10 makes “a determination as to whether or not an initiating event is detected.” Brown ¶ 79. “[A]n initiating event may include, but is not limited to, a user directing a cursor over a resource sensitive region or a user defined event occurring” within an “icon, graphic, window and other displayable object.” Brown ¶ 41. “In addition, a displayable object may have a resource sensitive region wherein a user is required to input a key entry, voice entry or other input to initiate the transparent display. A user defined event may include a particular input from the user” Brown ¶ 41.
displaying, in response to the first input, a floating artificial intelligence (AI) function entry interface
At block 80, the computer system 10 outputs “resource aid” information in the display area in accordance with user settings obtained in the prior steps. Brown ¶ 80. The information may “may incorporate help aids providing both static and dynamic text. For example, a help aid may be depicted in response to an initiating event in correlation with monitored resource information or independent of any monitored resource information. In addition, help aid contents may adjust according to the status of a particular monitored resource such that help instructions are tailored according to utilization.” Brown ¶ 40.
As shown in FIG. 4 (among others), the resource aid(s) are layered over the displayable objects (i.e., the windows and icons in the rest of the interface). See, e.g., Brown ¶ 43 (“In a typical graphical display, there is both a background and foreground. In the present invention, displayable objects displayed in the background and foreground may be adjusted in transparency. In addition, resource aids may be incorporated in both background and foreground”); Brown ¶ 46 (“the displayable object below is seen through a layer of the transparent resource aid”); Brown ¶ 45 (“other elements [are displayed] below the resource aid”).
wherein the floating AI function entry interface presents first recommended information based on one or more display objects displayed on the first interface,
“Additionally, resource aids may incorporate help aids providing both static and dynamic text.” Brown ¶ 40 “Help aids . . . contain[] information to aid a user in performing a task or understanding the function of an icon, window or other object.” Brown ¶ 19.
and wherein a size or a transparency of the floating AI function entry interface can be adjusted by the user.
Regarding user-adjusted size, “a user may select to close, minimize, or enlarge a transparent resource indicator, such as transparent resource bubble 62, by moving cursor 43 over the graphical area and clicking or entering other input indicating the transparent resource indicator is to be adjusted.” Brown ¶ 73.
Regarding user-adjusted transparency, “block 76 illustrates adjusting the transparency of the graphical output format according to the user transparency preference settings.” Brown ¶ 80. For example, FIG. 2 illustrates a window 80 where the user may define various settings 82–89 for the bubbles, see Brown ¶ 58, and those settings include “transparency selections 89” for setting the criteria and amount of transparency. Brown ¶ 64.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Lee’s user interface by making Brown’s resource aids one of the features that are accessible via Lee’s navigation area icons. One would have been motivated to at least apply Brown’s transparency technique to Lee because transparency would avoid “obscur[ing] the view of other graphics displayed.” Brown ¶ 22.
Claim 3
Claim 3 requires the method of claim 1, and further clarifies that there are two non-navigation buttons—one for each of the AI function entry interface and the scene service task interface—and that selecting each button causes its corresponding interface to be displayed.
Lee likewise teaches that the mobile terminal allows the user to expose multiple ones of the optional buttons to the navigation region 720 (in addition to the cancel, home, and menu buttons, which are deemed “mandatory”). See Lee ¶¶ 135–137. Naturally, regardless of how many total buttons are in the navigation region 720, each selection of each button triggers its corresponding interface to display, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. See Lee ¶¶ 126–131 and FIGS. 6A–6F.
Claim 4
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 3,
wherein the AI function entry interface comprises a text search button.
“The search button may be provided to search a memory or web for data matching a text inputted by a user. If the search button 650 is touched, referring to FIG. 6D, the user can control a virtual keypad 660 to be displayed in order for a user to input a text. If a prescribed text is inputted via the virtual keypad, the controller extracts data matching the inputted text from the memory and then displays the extracted data. If a prescribed text is inputted via the virtual keypad, the controller can display a result of the search for the inputted text found from the web.” Lee ¶ 127.
Claim 5
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 3, wherein displaying, in response to the third input, the scene service task interface comprises
switching, in response to the third input, to display the scene service task interface on the first interface.
Quick voice example: “If the quick voice button 640 is touched, referring to FIG. 6C, the controller can enter a state capable of receiving an input of user's voice, i.e., a voice input mode,” Lee ¶ 126, displaying an extra voice-related menu above the navigation region. See Lee FIG. 6C.
Volume example: “If the volume button 670 is touched, referring to FIG. 6E, the controller can control a pair of volume adjust buttons (e.g., `+` button 672 and `-` button 674) to be displayed.” Lee ¶ 128.
Recent list example: “A recent button is configured to provide a list of recently activated applications. If the recent button 690 is touched, referring to FIG. 6G, the controller can control a recently activated application list 695 to be displayed.” Lee ¶ 130.
Indication list example: “The indication button may be provided to display an indication window for providing information on an occurrence of an event (e.g., a text message newly received by a mobile terminal, a newly received email, an occurrence of an absent call, etc.). If the indication button 620 is touched, referring to FIG. 6B, the controller can control an indication window to be displayed in order to indicate an event occurrence.” Lee ¶ 125.
Claim 6
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 3,
wherein the first interface is a first application interface that includes the first button,
As shown in FIG. 4(b), Lee teaches a mobile terminal configured to display an interface comprising a “navigation region” with at least one button for performing a function other than navigation. See Lee ¶ 120 and FIGS. 5 and 7.
receiving a first preset operation from the user on the first button;
Quick voice example: the controller determines “[i]f the quick voice button 640 is touched.” Lee ¶ 126.
Integrated access example: the controller determines “[i]f the integrated access button is 680 touched.” Lee ¶ 129.
and displaying, in response to the first preset operation, the first recommended information on the first application interface.
Quick voice example: “If the quick voice button 640 is touched, referring to FIG. 6C, the controller can enter a state capable of receiving an input of user's voice, i.e., a voice input mode,” Lee ¶ 126, displaying an extra voice-related menu above the navigation region. See Lee FIG. 6C.
Integrated access example: “If the integrated access button is 680 touched, referring to FIG. 6F, the controller can control a plurality of buttons 682, 684 and 686, which are related to a plurality of functions linked to the integrated access button, respectively, to be displayed.” Lee ¶ 129.
Claim 7
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 6,
wherein the first recommended information is an emoticon.
Brown discloses that its “resource aids may incorporate help aids providing both static and dynamic text.” Brown ¶ 40. To the extent this static and dynamic text might have a different message or meaning than the claimed emoticon, “[w]here the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art.” MPEP § 2112.02(III.). The same doctrine applies to method claims. See MPEP § 2111.05 (“The rationale behind the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art.”).
Claim 8
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 6,
wherein the first recommended information is at least one of a web address link, a text, or a picture.
“[R]esource aids may incorporate help aids providing both static and dynamic text.” Brown ¶ 40.
Claim 11
Lee and Brown teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the AI function entry interface further comprises at least one of a voice search button, an image search button, a text search button, or a save function button.
Quick voice example: “If the quick voice button 640 is touched, referring to FIG. 6C, the controller can enter a state capable of receiving an input of user's voice, i.e., a voice input mode,” Lee ¶ 126, displaying an extra voice-related menu above the navigation region. See Lee FIG. 6C.
Integrated access example: “If the integrated access button is 680 touched, referring to FIG. 6F, the controller can control a plurality of buttons 682, 684 and 686, which are related to a plurality of functions linked to the integrated access button, respectively, to be displayed.” Lee ¶ 129. “In the example shown in FIG. 6F, if the integrated access button 680 is touched, a quick memo button 684, a quick voice button 682 and a search button 686 are displayed.” Lee ¶ 129.
Claim 12
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the AI function entry interface comprises:
performing, in response to the first input, a semantic analysis on content on the first interface to extract one or more keywords; and displaying information corresponding to the one or more keywords on the AI function entry interface.
As shown in FIG. 2, the computer system 10 includes settings 86, 88 that determine which resource aids to display based on the underlying meaning of “an icon, window or other displayable object” that “is within the display area.” Brown ¶ 62. For example, “when network capacity is greater than 80%,” the computer system 10 displays a resource aid that concerns networking if the icon, window, or other displayable object in the display area is associated with the network. Brown ¶ 62. As another example, “when a resource level rises above a maximum setting, display of a resource aid for that software component is initiated.” Brown ¶ 63.
Claim 13
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 1,
wherein displaying the scene service task interface comprises: displaying a first shortcut of a second application program at a first preset position on the scene service task interface at a first time;
“If the recent button 690 is touched, referring to FIG. 6G, the controller can control a recently activated application list 695 to be displayed.” Lee ¶ 130. For example, the recently activated application list 695 includes a “Subway” application. Lee FIG. 6G.
receiving a third preset operation from the user on the first shortcut;
The controller detects “[i]f a prescribed application is selected from the recently activated application list.” Lee ¶ 130.
displaying, on the scene service task interface in response to the third preset operation, a second interface corresponding to the second application program;
“If a prescribed application is selected from the recently activated application list, the controller can activate the selected application.” Lee ¶ 130.
displaying a second shortcut of a third application program at the first preset position at a second time, wherein the first time is different from the second time;
Lee does not say that recent button 690 is “single use.” Thus, at any time, “[i]f the recent button 690 is touched, referring to FIG. 6G, the controller can control a recently activated application list 695 to be displayed,” Lee ¶ 130, because that is what it is programmed to do. For example, the recently activated application list 695 includes a “Music” application. Lee FIG. 6G.
receiving a fourth preset operation from the user on the second shortcut;
The controller detects “[i]f a prescribed application is selected from the recently activated application list.” Lee ¶ 130.
and displaying, on the scene service task interface in response to the fourth preset operation, a third interface corresponding to the third application program.
“If a prescribed application is selected from the recently activated application list, the controller can activate the selected application.” Lee ¶ 130.
Claims 15–17
Claims 15–17 recite a general-purpose electronic device programmed to perform the method of claims 1, 11, and 3 (in that order). Lee’s mobile terminal, as improved via Brown’s suggestions, performs the same method as recited in those claims for the reasons given in their rejections above, and further teaches that the mobile terminal has the same components as the claimed electronic device. See Lee ¶ 47.
Claims 19 and 20
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a subset of the components from the general-purpose electronic device of claims 15 and 16, including all of the program instructions stored thereon. Therefore, claims 19 and 20 are rejected over the same findings and rationale provided in the rejections of claims 15 and 16. Any additional components recited in claims 15 and 16 that are not recited in claims 19 and 20 simply fall within the open-ended scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.03.
II. Lee, Brown, and Huang I teach claim 2.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Brown as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0233878 A1 (“Huang I”).
Claim 2
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 1, but do not explicitly mention a “save function button” on their respective interfaces.
Huang I, however, teaches a method of displaying an interface that falls within the scope of the claimed AI function entry interface because it displays recommended information to the user, wherein:
the AI function entry interface comprises a save function button.
“In an implementation, a functional button as shown by the three black dots is provided in the browser application, and the user is allowed to choose the function named ‘add to digital card’ 330 via the functional button.” Huang I ¶ 35. This function is exactly the same as the claimed “save function button,” because the save function button saves the suggested information to a preset location (see Spec. ¶ 116), and likewise, in response to selecting Huang I’s button 330, “the application 350 may obtain the respective messages 324, 326, 328, convert them into cards 344, 346, 348 respectively and store the cards 344, 346, 348 in the card collection.” Huang I ¶ 38.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to copy Huang I’s button 330 when implementing Lee and Brown’s respective methods, thus providing a way for the user to save information he or she wishes to review later. One would have been motivated to copy Huang I’s button 330 because the ability to store information in a unified “card” format, amongst a collection, is “very productive and efficient for users.” Huang I ¶ 58.
III. Lee, Brown, and Cho teach claims 9, 10, 18.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Brown as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0037311 A1 (“Cho”).
Claim 9
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 8, but neither reference explicitly discloses a “web address link” as the first recommended information.
Cho, however, teaches both claim 9 and several limitations that claim 9 incorporates by reference from its ancestor claims 8 and 6. To provide context to those reviewing this rejection, all of the relevant overlapping limitations taught by Cho will be discussed below.
Cho teaches, among other things, a method (FIG. 3) comprising:
[from claim 6] recommending, by AI, the first recommended information based on the one or more display objects displayed on the first application interface, wherein each of the one or more display objects is at least one piece of text information, voice information, or image information,
“The electronic device 100 may extract a keyword from [a] message received from the device of another user 200 in operation S130 . . . by using the semantic analysis method and the statistical analysis method.” Cho ¶¶ 97–98. The message(s) received from the device of the other user and analyzed in S130 are also displayed in a user interface of the device. Cho ¶¶ 86–87.
[from claim 8] wherein the first recommended information is at least one of a web address link, a text, a picture, or an emoticon.
Regarding the web address link, the content that electronic device 100 recommends may include a link to an article related to the message. Cho ¶ 373.
Regarding the text, picture, or emoticon, Cho further teaches that the content electronic device 100 obtains “may include a two-dimensional image, a three-dimensional image, a two-dimensional video, a three-dimensional video, a text reply formed of various languages, content of various fields, and content related to applications providing various services.” Cho ¶ 110.
[from claim 6] receiving a first preset operation from the user on the first button;
“Via a pop-up window 60, the electronic device 100 may receive a user input regarding whether to display the content obtained with respect to each keyword.” Cho ¶ 91.
[from claim 6] and displaying, in response to the first preset operation, the first recommended information on the first application interface;
“The electronic device 100 may display the obtained content, when the user touches or taps a first response button 61.” Cho ¶ 91.
[from claim 9] wherein the first recommended information is the web address link,
As mentioned above, the content that electronic device 100 recommends may include a link to an article related to the message. Cho ¶ 373.
and wherein after displaying the first recommended information, the method further comprises: receiving a second preset operation from the user on the web address link;
Upon displaying recommended news articles from applications that electronic device 100 determines to be responsive to an incoming text message, the electronic device then receives a user input that “selects the recommended news application 221–a.” Cho ¶ 373.
and displaying, on the first application interface in response to the second preset operation, content to which the web address link is directed.
In response to the selection, the device transmits a message to the thread of both participants, and thus, “[t]he electronic device 100 may display a message 122 including a link of the related article and an article summary screen.” Cho ¶ 373.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Cho with the method of Lee. Motivation to do so would have been to provide more convenient environments for communications. Cho ¶ 6.
Claim 10
Lee, Brown, and Cho teach the method of claim 9,
wherein the first application interface is a viewfinder interface, wherein the first recommended information corresponds to the one or more display objects, and wherein each of the one or more display objects is the image information.
“When the electronic device 100 determines the message 53 as a question, the electronic device 100 may display the related images 71, 72, and 73 without an additional input of the user. Alternatively, when the electronic device 100 determines the message 53 as a question, the electronic device 100 may display the related images 71, 72, and 73 as the content which may be used in responding, by considering an input value of the user in the settings.” Cho ¶ 135.
Claim 18
Lee and Brown teach the electronic device of claim 17, but neither explicitly mention that the first recommended information is a web address link.
Cho, however, teaches an electronic device that displays first recommended information,
wherein the first recommended information is a web address link.
“Referring to FIGS. 53C, 53D1, and 53D2, the device of another user 200 may display a message 221 received from John. The device of another user 200 may recommend a news application 221—a in correspondence to the received message 221. When Mike selects the recommended news application 221—a, the device of another user 200 may display a news article via a screen transformation as illustrated in FIG. 53D2, and Mike may select the news article to transmit the related article to the electronic device 100 of John. The electronic device 100 may display a message 122 including a link of the related article and an article summary screen.” Cho ¶ 373.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Cho with the method of Lee. Motivation to do so would have been to provide more convenient environments for communications. Cho ¶ 6.
IV. Lee, Brown, and Huang II teach claim 14.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Brown as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0371648 A1 (“Huang II”).
Claim 14
Lee and Brown teach the method of claim 13, but do not explicitly disclose displaying different content corresponding to the different application programs on the non-navigation button itself.
Huang II, however, teaches both this and all of other limitations recited in parent claim 13. Huang II’s overlapping disclosure of those limitations will now be discussed below for context and to show the strength of the obviousness conclusion. Huang II teaches a terminal that performs a method,
wherein a second application program and a third application program are based on a use habit of the user,
Huang II’s terminal includes “a user’s application use behavior recording module 70101 and an application shortcut presentation policy module 70102.” Huang II ¶ 85. These two modules “record information about applications in a mobile phone of the user and user's usage of these applications,” Huang II ¶ 86, and “analyze and obtain, through statistics collection, a corresponding application list based on the record of the user's application use behavior and an application shortcut presentation policy set by the user.” Huang II ¶ 87.
wherein the second application program is different than the third application program,
The above use behavior analysis is performed among several different applications installed on the terminal. See, e.g., Huang II ¶¶ 11–13.
and wherein displaying the scene service task interface comprises:
As shown in FIGS. 3(1) to 3(4), a user may tap a floating dock 301 (the claimed “non-navigation button”) “to open a floating window 302” (the claimed scene service task interface). Huang II ¶ 109.
[from claim 14] displaying, at the first time on the non-navigation button, content corresponding to the second application program;
“FIG. 3(1) shows a home screen on the terminal. A floating dock 301 is displayed on the home screen,” with the “phone” icon serving as the entry point for opening the floating window. Huang II ¶ 109.
displaying a first shortcut of the second application program at a first preset position on the scene service task interface at a first time;
“As shown in FIG. 3(2), the floating window 302 includes three application shortcuts: an application icon ‘phone’, an application icon ‘WeChat’, and an application icon ‘Alipay’.” Huang II ¶ 109.
receiving a third preset operation from the user on the first shortcut; displaying, on the scene service task interface in response to the third preset operation, a second interface corresponding to the second application program;
In general, a “shortcut” in Huang II’s disclosure is an icon that corresponds to a respective application, which the user may operate to “quickly start” the corresponding application. Huang II ¶¶ 5–7.
[from claim 14] and displaying, at the second time on the non-navigation button, content corresponding to the third application program.
“FIG. 3(3) shows another home screen on the terminal. A floating dock 303 is displayed on the home screen.” Huang II ¶ 109. However, the phone icon has been replaced with the CMB icon. Huang II FIG. 3(3); see also Huang II ¶ 131 (explaining a process that replaces a “third application icon” on a docked bar of the home screen with “a fourth application that meets a preset condition”).
displaying a second shortcut of the third application program at the first preset position at a second time, wherein the first time is different from the second time;
“FIG. 3(3) shows another home screen on the terminal. A floating dock 303 is displayed on the home screen. The user may tap the floating dock 303 to open a floating window 304 on the home screen. As shown in FIG. 3(4), the floating window 304 includes three application shortcuts: an application icon ‘CMB’, an application icon ‘contacts’, and an application icon ‘messages’.” Huang II ¶ 109.
receiving a fourth preset operation from the user on the second shortcut; and displaying, on the scene service task interface in response to the fourth preset operation, a third interface corresponding to the third application program.
Again, a “shortcut” in Huang II’s disclosure is an icon that corresponds to a respective application, which the user may operate to “quickly start” the corresponding application. Huang II ¶¶ 5–7.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Lee’s recent button 690 with Huang II’s floating dock 303, thereby providing a version of the recent button 690 that replaces its icon with content that is relevant to different ones of the different recently used applications at different times. One would have been motivated to improve Lee’s recent button in this way because “[a] large quantity of applications bring a variety of applications to a user, but also bring a difficulty in quickly searching for an application to the user.” Huang II ¶ 2.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 6–10, 13, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8,10-11,19-20 (as set forth below) of U.S. Patent No. 11,416,126 (hereafter “126”) in view of Brown. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As per claim 1, 126 recites a method comprising:
displaying a first interface comprising a navigation bar that comprises a navigation button and at least one non-navigation button (Column 27 Claim 1 lines 56-57);
when the navigation button is triggered, performing at least one of:
returning to a previous interface (Column 27 Claim 1 lines 58-61);
jumping to a home interface (Column 27 Claim 1 lines 62); or
invoking an interface of an application program accessed within a preset time up to a current moment (Column 27 Claim 1 lines 63-65);
receiving a first input of a user on the at least one non-navigation button (Column 27 Claim 1 lines 66-67); and
displaying, in response to the first input, an artificial intelligence (Al) function entry interface (Column 27 Claim 1 lines 67 Column 28 lines 4)
wherein the floating AI function entry interface presents first recommended information based on one or more display objects displayed on the first application interface (Column 27 Claim 1 lines 8-11).
Claim 1 of 126 does not explicitly recite “a size or a transparency of the floating AI function entry interface can be adjusted by the user.”
Brown, however, teaches a method comprising:
receiving a first input of a user on the at least one non-navigation button;
At block 72, the computer system 10 makes “a determination as to whether or not an initiating event is detected.” Brown ¶ 79. “[A]n initiating event may include, but is not limited to, a user directing a cursor over a resource sensitive region or a user defined event occurring” within an “icon, graphic, window and other displayable object.” Brown ¶ 41. “In addition, a displayable object may have a resource sensitive region wherein a user is required to input a key entry, voice entry or other input to initiate the transparent display. A user defined event may include a particular input from the user” Brown ¶ 41.
displaying, in response to the first input, a floating artificial intelligence (AI) function entry interface or a scene service task interface that corresponds to the at least one non-navigation button;
At block 80, the computer system 10 outputs “resource aid” information in the display area in accordance with user settings obtained in the prior steps. Brown ¶ 80. The information may “may incorporate help aids providing both static and dynamic text. For example, a help aid may be depicted in response to an initiating event in correlation with monitored resource information or independent of any monitored resource information. In addition, help aid contents may adjust according to the status of a particular monitored resource such that help instructions are tailored according to utilization.” Brown ¶ 40.
As shown in FIG. 4 (among others), the resource aid(s) are layered over the displayable objects (i.e., the windows and icons in the rest of the interface). See, e.g., Brown ¶ 43 (“In a typical graphical display, there is both a background and foreground. In the present invention, displayable objects displayed in the background and foreground may be adjusted in transparency. In addition, resource aids may be incorporated in both background and foreground”); Brown ¶ 46 (“the displayable object below is seen through a layer of the transparent resource aid”); Brown ¶ 45 (“other elements [are displayed] below the resource aid”).
wherein the floating AI function entry interface presents first recommended information based on one or more display objects displayed on the first interface,
“Additionally, resource aids may incorporate help aids providing both static and dynamic text.” Brown ¶ 40 “Help aids . . . contain[] information to aid a user in performing a task or understanding the function of an icon, window or other object.” Brown ¶ 19.
and wherein a size or a transparency of the floating AI function entry interface can be adjusted by the user.
Regarding user-adjusted size, “a user may select to close, minimize, or enlarge a transparent resource indicator, such as transparent resource bubble 62, by moving cursor 43 over the graphical area and clicking or entering other input indicating the transparent resource indicator is to be adjusted.” Brown ¶ 73.
Regarding user-adjusted transparency, “block 76 illustrates adjusting the transparency of the graphical output format according to the user transparency preference settings.” Brown ¶ 80. For example, FIG. 2 illustrates a window 80 where the user may define various settings 82–89 for the bubbles, see Brown ¶ 58, and those settings include “transparency selections 89” for setting the criteria and amount of transparency. Brown ¶ 64.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Lee’s user interface by making Brown’s resource aids one of the features that are accessible via Lee’s navigation area icons. One would have been motivated to at least apply Brown’s transparency technique to Lee because transparency would avoid “obscur[ing] the view of other graphics displayed.” Brown ¶ 22.
As per claim 4, 126 and Brown teach the method of claim 3, wherein displaying, in response to the second input, the Al function entry interface comprises displaying, in response to the second input, the Al function entry interface on the first interface in a floating manner (Column 27 Claim 1 lines 67- Column 28 line 4)).
As per claim 6, 126 and Brown teach the method of claim 3, wherein the first interface is a first application interface that includes the first button, and wherein displaying, in response to the second input, the Al function entry interface comprises:
receiving a first preset operation from the user on the first button (Column 28 Claim 1 lines 5-6); and
displaying, in response to the first preset operation, the first recommended information on the first application interface (Column 28 Claim 1 lines 7-8).
As per claim 7, 126 and Brown teach the method of claim 6, wherein displaying the first recommended information comprises:
displaying the first recommended information in an input box of the first application interface (Column 28 Claim 3 lines 20-21);
displaying the first recommended information on the first application interface in a floating manner (Column 28 Claim 3 lines 22-23); or
modifying the first application interface to obtain a modified first application interface and displaying the first recommended information on the modified first application interface (Column 28 Claim 3 lines 24-27).
As per claim 8, 126 and Brown teach the method of claim 6, wherein the first recommended information is at least one of a web address link, a text, a picture, or an emoticon (Column 28 Claim 4 lines 28-30).
As per claim 9, 126 and Brown teach the method of claim 8, wherein the first recommended information is the web address link, and wherein after displaying the first recommended information, the method further comprises (Column 28 Claim 5 lines 31-34):
receiving a second preset operation from the user on the web address link (Column 28 Claim 5 lines 35-36); and
displaying, on the first application interface in response to the second preset operation, content to which the web address link is directed (Column 28 Claim 5 lines 37-39).
As per claim 10, 126 and Brown teach the method of claim 9, wherein the first application interface is a viewfinder interface, wherein the first recommended information corresponds to the one or more display objects, and wherein each of the one or more display objects is the image information (Column 28 Claim 6 lines 40-44).
As per claim 13, 126 and Brown teach the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the scene service task interface comprises:
determining a second application program and a third application program based on a use habit of the user, wherein the second application program is different than the third application program;
displaying a first shortcut of the second application program at a first preset position on the scene service task interface at a first time (Column 28 Claim 7 lines 48-56);
receiving a third preset operation from the user on the first shortcut; displaying, on the scene service task interface in response to the third preset operation, a second interface corresponding to the second application program (Column 28 Claim 7 lines 57-58);
displaying a second shortcut of the third application program at the first preset position at a second time, wherein the first time is different from the second time (Column 28 Claim 7 lines 62-64);
receiving a fourth preset operation from the user on the second shortcut (Column 29 Claim 7 lines 1-2); and
displaying, on the scene service task interface in response to the fourth preset operation, a third interface corresponding to the third application program (Column 29 Claim 7 lines 3-5).
As per claim 14, 126 and Brown teach the method of claim 13, further comprising:
displaying, at the first time on the non-navigation button, content corresponding to the second application program (Column 29 Claim 8 lines 7-10); and
displaying, at the second time on the non-navigation button, content corresponding to the third application program (Column 29 Claim 8 lines 11-13).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 A new ground of rejection for claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is provided herein.
Prosecution Insights