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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment dated 4/10/2026.
2. Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are pending in the case.
3. Claims 2 and 16 are cancelled.
4. Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3-15 and 17-20 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. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 1 and 15 :
Claims 1 and 15 recite: “displaying the lite version component on the display in response to detecting an occurrence of the at least one user selectable event trigger without requiring a direct end-user request to launch the digital application at a time of detecting the at least one user selectable event trigger, to override a currently displayed graphical user interface on the portable computing device by assigning to the lite version component a foreground display priority and user focus input to at least one other graphical user interface displayed on the display, wherein the configuration selection deprioritizes at least one of the plurality of portable computing device resources when the lite version component is executed by limiting utilization of the at least one resource of the digital application without executing the lite version component.” (emphasis added)
There is no mention of the newly amended limitation in the original Specification. Thus, the limitations include subject matter that was not described in the original Specification.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original Specification that describes this feature of the present invention, then Applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 would be allowable if Applicant can point out written support from instant specification for amendments to overcome outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejection to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 112 (a) Rejections
1)Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would recognize these disclosures as describing foreground display priority and user input focus that support the limitations, that upon detecting at least one user selectable event trigger, the currently displayed graphical user interface is overridden on the portable computing device by assigning to the lite version component a foreground display priority and user focus input to at least one other graphical user interface that may be displayed.(see Response; page 16)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that Applicant has failed to provide support for assigning to the lite version component user focus input to at least one other graphical user interface displayed on the display. (emphasis added) (see claims 1 and 15)
Examiner notes that Applicant submits for the user input focus (b), the specification describes the functional equivalent of "user input focus." In computing, the UI surface that is currently displayed and receiving user interaction events has input focus. The specification discloses both the general mechanism for routing touch input to displayed objects and the specific example of the App Billboard receiving that input.(see page 14)
In light of the Applicant’s response above, Examiner notes that the claim language requires support for features in respect to the lite version component rather than the App Billboard and also support for assigning user focus input to at least one other graphical user interface displayed on the display in the context of the displayed lite version component.
Examiner submits that the cited portions by Applicant merely supports receiving user interactions and input to select the displayed objects but fails to disclose assigning to the lite version component user focus input to at least one other graphical user interface displayed on the display, when the lite version component is displayed as required by the claims. (emphasis added)
2)Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would recognize these disclosures as describing utilization of the at least one resource of the digital application without executing the lite version component. (see Response; page 18)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that Applicant has failed to provide support for the limitation “wherein the configuration selection deprioritizes at least one of the plurality of portable computing device resources when the lite version component is executed by limiting utilization of the at least one resource of the digital application without executing the lite version component.” (emphasis added) (see claims 1 and 15)
Examiner notes that Applicant submits for the limitation of, "wherein the configuration selection deprioritizes at least one of the plurality of portable computing device resources when the lite version component is executed by limiting utilization of the at least one resource of the digital application without executing the lite version component", The Applicant's original filed specification describes multiple user-configurable controls that limit utilization of specific portable-computing-device resources during lite version execution. (emphasis added)
Examiner notes that the claim language requires limiting utilization of specific portable-computing-device resources without lite version execution. (emphasis added).
Examiner submits that the Applicant has failed to provide support when the lite version component is executed by limiting utilization of the at least one resource of the digital application without executing the lite version component. Examiner submits that the cited portions by Applicant merely supports limiting the utilization of the at least one resource of the digital application but fails to disclose when the lite version component is executed by limiting utilization of the at least one resource of the digital application without executing the lite version component.” (emphasis added)
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims are not in condition for allowance.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY ORR whose telephone number is (571)270-1308. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/HENRY ORR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights