DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20, 34, and 37-40 are cancelled. Claims 21-23, 26, 29-31, and 41-43 are amended. Claim 45 is new. Claims 21-33, 35-36, and 41-45 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 21-36 in the reply filed on 03/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications; Application No. 16/803,822, Application No. 15/832,910, and Application No. 62/507,188; fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically, the prior-filed applications fail to provide adequate support for the limitation “default device user interface” as recited in the claims of the instant application. The prior-filed applications describe a device application-level default user interface, such as a default interface of a watch application, and do not disclose a “default device user interface” at device-level as explained by the Applicants (Remarks, page 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-33, 35-36, and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “a default device user interface” in lines 11-12. However, the original disclosure does not provide a device-level default user interface. The specification discloses a device application-level default user interface, such as a default interface of a watch application, for example in paragraphs [0061]-[0062]. Furthermore, the Applicants explain this limitation as referring to a device-level default user interface, as opposed to an application-level user interface as disclosed by Chang (Remarks, page 9).
Therefore, claim 21 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-28 and 45 inherit the features of claim 21 and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 22, 23, 26, 29-31, 41-43, and 45 also recite the limitation “default device user interface” which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as discussed above with respect to claim 21.
Consequently, claims 22, 23, 26, 29-31, 41-43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 30-35, 36, and 42-44 inherit the features of claims 29 and 41. Thus, claims 30-35, 36, and 42-44are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 21, 22, 26-30, 35-36, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US 2016/0364272 A1; from IDS filed on 09/08/2022; hereinafter Hou) in view of Mistry et al. (US 2014/0143784 A1; hereinafter Mistry).
With respect to claim 21, Hou teaches: A method comprising:
detecting, by an electronic device, a wake event (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 72: “when the electronic device has been switched from the second state to the first state”; and paragraph 36: “the first state can be a screen-on state and the second state can be a screen-off state”); and
Note that, switching from screen-off state (i.e. the second state) to screen-on state (i.e. the first state) is a wake event for the screen.
transitioning a display of the electronic device from a low power state to a higher power state (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 72: “when the electronic device has been switched from the second state to the first state”; and paragraph 36: “the first state can be a screen-on state and the second state can be a screen-off state”), the transitioning comprising:
Note that, switching from a screen from off-state (i.e. the second state) to an on-state (i.e. the first state) inherently discloses switching from a lower power consumption for the screen to a higher power consumption.
determining, by the electronic device and in response to the wake event (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 72: “when the electronic device has been switched from the second state to the first state”), if an active session of a first application is executing on the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 72: “when the electronic device has been switched from the second state to the first state, a first application is initiated on basis that the first application has been preloaded in response to receiving a request for initiating the first application. The first application is an application in the priority list that has been preloaded”; paragraph 38: “priorities of all the applications in accordance with the predetermined strategy can include: acquiring current usage behavior information”; and paragraph 39: “current usage behavior information can include at least one or more of: application initiation time, application execution time and application execution progress”);
in response to a determination that the active session of the first application is executing on the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 72: “The first application is an application in the priority list that has been preloaded”; and paragraphs 38-39), displaying or updating a display of a user interface of the first application on the display of the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 72: “a first application is initiated on basis that the first application has been preloaded”; and paragraph 74: “news client application will have a high priority. Hence, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., the electronic device will preload the news client application, such that news contents can be presented to the user quickly”); and
That is, when an application is in the priority list and preloaded, that application is initiated and displayed on the screen for the user to view, such as viewing news from a news application with a high priority.
in response to a determination that the active session of the first application (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 60: “A”, “D”) is not executing on the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 60: “user may initiate two applications B and C… the priority list is determined, the result of the sorting can be B>C>A>D”; and paragraph 98: “did not view the stock application in early April”), displaying or updating a display of a [default device] user interface of the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 4: “releases the resources occupied by applications having low priorities”; paragraph 60: “when the priority list is determined, the result of the sorting can be B>C>A>D” paragraph 72: “a first application is initiated on basis that the first application has been preloaded… The first application is an application in the priority list”; and paragraph 74: “news client application will have a high priority. Hence, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., the electronic device will preload the news client application, such that news contents can be presented to the user quickly”).
That is, Hou determines which applications are inactive, assigns lower priorities to such inactive applications, and executes and displays active application with a higher priority on the screen instead of the inactive applications with the lower priorities.
However, even though Hou discloses displaying or updating a user interface of the device (see e.g. Hou, paragraphs 72, 74), Hou does not explicitly disclose a “default device” user interface.
On the other hand, Mistry teaches:
default device (see e.g. Mistry, paragraph 197: “GUI of the device may include faces as default screens or wallpapers for the device, and these faces may be part of an interaction and transition model hierarchy (e.g. in the top layer of the hierarchy or as a home screen).”)
Hou and Mistry are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing electronic device display states based on user interactions with applications executing on the electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hou with the teachings of Mistry. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve user experience.
With respect to claim 22, Hou as modified teaches: The method of claim 21, wherein in response to the determination that the active session of the first application is not executing on the electronic device further comprises:
determining if a persistent session of a second application is executing on the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 59: “analyzing the current usage behavior information for all the application with reference to the historical usage behavior information for all the applications; and determining the priorities of all the applications based on a result of the analyzing”; and paragraph 98: “addicted to a game b application… set the priority of the game b application to a high level… user's usage behavior information for each application each time is recorded and analyzed”);
in response to a determination that the persistent session of the second application is executing on the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 59: “analyzing the current usage behavior information for all the application with reference to the historical usage behavior information for all the applications”; and paragraph 98: “addicted to a game b application”), displaying or updating a display of a user interface of the second application on the display of the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 98: “priority of the game b application to a high level”; paragraph 71: “preloading the applications having the highest M priorities”; and paragraph 72: “first application is initiated on basis that the first application has been preloaded”); and
in response to a determination that the persistent session of the second application is not executing on the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 59: “analyzing the current usage behavior information for all the application with reference to the historical usage behavior information for all the applications”; paragraph 60: “user may initiate two applications B and C when the electronic device is in the first state. In this case, when the electronic device is in the second state, the acquired historical priorities can be A>B>C>D. Then, when the priority list is determined, the result of the sorting can be B>C>A>D”; and paragraph 98: “Since the user's usage behavior information for each application each time is recorded and analyzed, it is possible to better determine whether the user's custom has changed or not and better adapt to the change in the user's custom”), displaying or updating the display of the [default device] user interface of the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 4: “releases the resources occupied by applications having low priorities”; paragraph 60: “when the priority list is determined, the result of the sorting can be B>C>A>D” paragraph 72: “a first application is initiated on basis that the first application has been preloaded… The first application is an application in the priority list”; and paragraph 74: “news client application will have a high priority. Hence, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., the electronic device will preload the news client application, such that news contents can be presented to the user quickly”).
Hou does not but Mistry teaches:
default device (see e.g. Mistry, paragraph 197: “GUI of the device may include faces as default screens or wallpapers for the device, and these faces may be part of an interaction and transition model hierarchy (e.g. in the top layer of the hierarchy or as a home screen).”)
Hou and Mistry are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing electronic device display states based on user interactions with applications executing on the electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hou with the teachings of Mistry. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve user experience.
With respect to claim 26, Hou as modified teaches: The method of claim 21, wherein the [default device] user interface displays or indicates a time of day (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 79: “all the applications include applications provided by the system of the electron device, such as clock application”).
Hou does not but Mistry teaches:
default device (see e.g. Mistry, paragraph 197: “GUI of the device may include faces as default screens or wallpapers for the device, and these faces may be part of an interaction and transition model hierarchy (e.g. in the top layer of the hierarchy or as a home screen).”)
Hou and Mistry are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing electronic device display states based on user interactions with applications executing on the electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hou with the teachings of Mistry. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve user experience.
With respect to claim 27, Hou as modified teaches: The method of claim 21, wherein the transitioning further comprises:
increasing system resources (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 70: “memory usage”) that are available to the first application (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 69: “selecting one or more applications from the priority list for preloading can include preloading one or more applications in the priority list that has a priority satisfying a second predetermined condition based on a system memory state”; paragraph 70; and paragraph 4: “releases the resources occupied by applications having low priorities”).
With respect to claim 28, Hou as modified teaches: The method of claim 21, wherein the active session corresponds to a user activity external to the electronic device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 38: “current usage behavior information of the user for all the applications”; paragraph 39: “current usage behavior information can include at least one or more of: application initiation time, application execution time and application execution progress”; and paragraph 50).
With respect to claims 29, 30, and 35-36: Claims 29, 30, and 35-36 are directed to a device comprising a memory and at least one processor configured to implement active functions corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 21, 22, and 27-28, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 21, 22, and 27-28 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 29, 30, and 35-36. Note that, Hou further discloses a device comprising a memory and a processor configured to implement the method disclosed in claims 21, 22, and 27-28 (see e.g. Hou, paragraphs 152-158).
With respect to claims 41 and 42: Claims 41 and 42 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 21 and 22, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 21 and 22 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 41 and 42. Note that, Hou further discloses a computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions to implement the method disclosed in claims 21 and 22 (see e.g. Hou, paragraphs 157-158).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In detail:
(i) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to Hou determining an “active session” of an application as recited claim 21 (Remarks, pages 8-9), note that Hou maintains a priority list of applications based on application usage (including application execution times and progress) for preloading applications with higher usage (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 72: “a first application is initiated on basis that the first application has been preloaded in response to receiving a request for initiating the first application. The first application is an application in the priority list that has been preloaded”; paragraph 38: “priorities of all the applications in accordance with the predetermined strategy can include: acquiring current usage behavior information”; and paragraph 39: “current usage behavior information can include at least one or more of: application initiation time, application execution time and application execution progress”).
That is, high priority applications are actively maintained in the memory (i.e. preloaded) and when a screen is turned on from off (i.e. a wake event), the application with the high priority is displayed on the screen of the device (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 72: “when the electronic device has been switched from the second state to the first state, a first application is initiated on basis that the first application has been preloaded in response to receiving a request for initiating the first application. The first application is an application in the priority list that has been preloaded”).
For example, Hou discloses a news client application with a high priority that is preloaded and displayed on the screen (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 74: “news client application will have a high priority. Hence, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., the electronic device will preload the news client application, such that news contents can be presented to the user quickly”).
More specifically, Hou discloses determining if the application is preloaded (i.e. determining an active session of the application) in response to a wake event, such as turning the screen on from off.
As such, Hou teaches the limitation “determining, by the electronic device and in response to the wake event, if an active session of a first application is executing on the electronic device” as recited in claim 21. For more details, please see the rejection directed to claim 21 above.
(ii) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to selectively displaying applications on the screen based on “active session” (Remarks, page 9), in view of the above discussion (i), note that Hou discloses not preloading the applications that are low priority. As such, the low priority applications are not displayed on the screen when the screen-on event occurs.
Specifically, even though Hou does not explicitly disclose displaying a “default device” user interface, Hou does disclose determining which application is preloaded (i.e. active session is executing) and which applications are not preloaded (i.e. active session for these applications are not executing) and displaying the preloaded application while the not preloaded application is not displayed (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 4: “releases the resources occupied by applications having low priorities”; paragraph 60: “when the priority list is determined, the result of the sorting can be B>C>A>D” paragraph 72: “a first application is initiated on basis that the first application has been preloaded… The first application is an application in the priority list”; and paragraph 74: “news client application will have a high priority. Hence, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., the electronic device will preload the news client application, such that news contents can be presented to the user quickly”).
As such, Hou teaches the limitations “in response to a determination that the active session of the first application is executing” and “in response to a determination that the active session of the first application is not executing” as recited in claim 21. For more details, please see the rejection directed to claim 21 above.
(iii) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 28 and 36 (Remarks, pages 10-11), note that Hou does disclose monitoring a user’s usage of the applications (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 38: “current usage behavior information of the user for all the applications”; paragraph 39: “current usage behavior information can include at least one or more of: application initiation time, application execution time and application execution progress”), such as how frequently the user utilizes a news client application or a stock application (see e.g. Hou, paragraph 74: “a recording result for the electronic device may indicate that the user typically initiates a news client application from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Then, when the priorities are determined, the news client application will have a high priority. Hence, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., the electronic device will preload the news client application, such that news contents can be presented to the user quickly when the user initiates the news client application”; and paragraph 98: “user viewed a stock application usually in January and February, viewed the stock application occasionally in March, and did not view the stock application in early April and was addicted to a game b application. Accordingly, the electronic device no longer preloads the stock application in the screen-off state and set the priority of the game b application to a high level”).
Further note that, such user behavior are activities, such as viewing content, are external to the device.
As such, Hou teaches the limitations recited in claims 28 and 36. For more details, please see the corresponding rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation “default device” recited in claims 21-23, 26, 29-31, 41-43, and 45 (Remarks, page 9) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Petersen et al. (US 2014/0068494 A1) discloses conditionally displaying a default user interface on a GUI of a wearable device (see paragraph 42).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194