Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/220,447

APPLICATION MANAGEMENT METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jul 11, 2023
Examiner
MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA
Art Unit
2174
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
30%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
5y 7m
To Grant
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 30% of cases
30%
Career Allow Rate
76 granted / 249 resolved
-24.5% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
284
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§103
65.8%
+25.8% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 249 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 06/13/2025. Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-24 are pending in this application. In the Amendment, claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 14-16 and 19-20 are amended, claims 7-8 and 17-18 are cancelled, and 21-24 are new. This action is made Final. 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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims amended 06/13/2025 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The rejection has been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment. 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. Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (“Lim”, US 2022/0075506) in view of Kim et al. (“Kim”, US 2014/0096083) in view of Shuttleworth et al. (“Shuttleworth”, US 2014/0189608) and further in view of Razallian et al. (“Razallian”, US 2019/0317941). As per claim 1, Lim teaches an application management method, comprising: acquiring a folder comprising a plurality of applications (Lim, para.23, 25, 36, 58, 68, 79, plurality of apps displayed in a folder); in response to determining that the plurality of applications in the folder are of a same type, aggregating the plurality of applications of the same type (Lim, para.25, 36, 42, 51, 66-67, 69, 80, application of icons contained in folder of same category) and converting the folder into an image (Lim, para.24, 26, 37, 52, 67, 71, 81, image of folder for each category displayed); and presenting the image (Lim, para.24, 26, 37, 52, 67, 71, 81, image of folder for each category displayed). However, Lim does not explicitly teach converting the folder into an aggregation icon and presenting the aggregation icon. Kim teaches a method of displaying a plurality of applications in a folder that is converted into an aggregation icon and presented on the display (Kim, para.65, Fig.4, icon 405). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kim’s teaching with Lim’s method in order to display a representative icon and quickly open apps within a folder. Furthermore, the method of Lim and Kim teaches wherein the plurality of applications include a current application that is running (Kim, para.67-68, Fig.5, running app 505; Fig.6, running app 603). However, the method of Lim and Kim does not teach a display interface of the current application is configured to display an application bar comprising a handle, the application management method further comprises: in response to the handle being dragged in a first direction, generating a first operation signal; in response to receiving the first operation signal, displaying a search interface, wherein the search interface is configured to search each of the plurality of applications of the same type and icons of the plurality of applications of the same type are displayed in the search interface. Shuttleworth teaches a method of displaying an application stack comprising a handle, the application management method further comprises: in response to the handle being dragged in a first direction (Shuttleworth, para.119, 309, 315, 454-457, swipe from bottom edge reveals HUD interface to search the app stack), generating a first operation signal; in response to receiving the first operation signal, displaying a search interface, wherein the search interface is configured to search each of the plurality of applications of the same type (Shuttleworth, Fig.8, para.119, 309, 315, 454-457, swipe signal displays search interface with app bar to search applications) and icons of the plurality of applications of the same type are displayed in the search interface (Shuttleworth, Fig.8, app stack). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Shuttleworth’s teaching with the method of Lim and Kim in order to search within related apps. Additionally, the method of Lim, Kim and Shuttleworth does not teach displaying, in the search interface, a first search result of each of the plurality of applications of the same type; and in response to receiving a trigger signal for the icon of an application of the plurality of applications of the same type in the search interface, opening the application whose icon receives the trigger signal and displaying a second search result of the opened application. Razallian teaches a method of displaying and searching within app icons that includes displaying, in the search interface, a first search result of each of the plurality of applications of the same type (Razallian, Fig.3A-C, para.39-43, searching within apps 302 and displaying results in 3B); and in response to receiving a trigger signal for the icon of an application of the plurality of applications of the same type in the search interface, opening the application whose icon receives the trigger signal and displaying a second search result of the opened application (Razallian, Fig.3C, para.43, Restaurant Review app opened with result). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Razallian’s teaching with the method of Lim, Kim and Shuttleworth in order to select an app from search results. As per claim 3, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian teaches the application management method according to claim 1, wherein the application management method further comprises: opening one of the applications in response to receiving a first trigger signal of the aggregation icon (Kim, Fig.3, step 305, Fig.6, para.61, 68, double tap gesture on folder icon runs app displayed). As per claim 4, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian teaches the application management method according to claim 1, wherein the application management method further comprises: displaying the icons of the plurality of applications of the same type in response to receiving a second trigger signal of the aggregation icon (Kim, Fig.3, step 307, Fig.5; para.64-67, tap gesture on folder icon 501 displays app icons in folder). As per claim 5, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian teaches the application management method according to claim 4, wherein the application management method further comprises: in response to receiving a further trigger signal for the icon of an application of the plurality of applications of the same type, opening the application whose icon receives the further trigger signal (Kim, Fig.3, step 311, Fig.5; para.64-67, touch gesture on folder icon 503 runs app displayed). Claims 11 and 13-15 are similar in scope to claims 1 and 3-5 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (“Lim”, US 2022/0075506), Kim et al. (“Kim”, US 2014/0096083), Shuttleworth et al. (“Shuttleworth”, US 2014/0189608) and Razallian et al. (“Razallian”, US 2019/0317941) in view of WON et al. (“WON”, US 2014/0181751). As per claim 2, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian teaches the application management method according to claim 1, wherein aggregating the plurality of applications and converting the folder into an aggregation icon in response to determining that the plurality of applications in the folder are of a same type (Kim, para.65, Fig.4, icon 405), however does not teach displaying an aggregation button in response to determining that the plurality of the applications in the folder are of the same type; and aggregating the plurality of applications and converting the folder into an aggregation icon in response to receiving a further trigger signal of the aggregation button. WON teaches a method of aggregating applications based on category that includes displaying an aggregation button (WON, para.58, Fig.4A, icon 421 aggregates apps) and aggregating the plurality of applications and converting the folder into an aggregation icon in response to receiving a further trigger signal of the aggregation button (WON, para.58, Fig.4A, icon 421 aggregates apps). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include WON’s teaching with the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian in order to manually aggregate applications. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (“Lim”, US 2022/0075506), Kim et al. (“Kim”, US 2014/0096083), Shuttleworth et al. (“Shuttleworth”, US 2014/0189608) and Razallian et al. (“Razallian”, US 2019/0317941) in view of KIM (“KIM2”, US 2010/0138763). As per claim 6, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian teaches the application management method according to claim 1, however does not teach wherein the application management method further comprises: displaying a dissolve button in response to receiving a third trigger signal of the aggregation icon; dissolving the plurality of the applications aggregated and converting the aggregation icon into the folder in response to receiving a further trigger signal of the dissolve button. KIM2 teaches a method of aggregating icons that includes displaying a dissolve button in response to receiving a signal of the aggregation icon (KIM2, Fig.8B, para.175-176, GROUP RELEASE button); dissolving the plurality of the applications aggregated and converting the aggregation icon in response to receiving a further trigger signal of the dissolve button (KIM2, Fig.8C-8D, para.176-178, merged icon M2 is demerged into W1 and W2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include KIM2’s teaching with the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian in order to undo the aggregation. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (“Lim”, US 2022/0075506), Kim et al. (“Kim”, US 2014/0096083), Shuttleworth et al. (“Shuttleworth”, US 2014/0189608) and Razallian et al. (“Razallian”, US 2019/0317941) in view of Boule et al. (“Boule”, US 2017/0357433). As per claim 9, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian teaches the application management method according to claim 1, however does not teach the application management method comprising: displaying the icons of the plurality of applications in the display interface of the current application; and in response to receiving a further trigger signal for the icon of an application of the plurality of applications, switching the application whose icon receives the further trigger signal to being a currently running application. Boule teaches a method of displaying application icons wherein displaying the icons of the applications in the display interface of the current application (Boule, para.203; Fig.6A, app menu 606 includes app 608, 612, 616; Fig.6C-6D, para.207-209); and switching the triggered application to the current application in response to receiving a trigger signal of the icon of the application (Boule, Fig.6C-6D, para.207-209, switch from music to map app). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Boule’s teaching with the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian in order to swiftly display applications. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (“Lim”, US 2022/0075506), Kim et al. (“Kim”, US 2014/0096083), Shuttleworth et al. (“Shuttleworth”, US 2014/0189608), Razallian et al. (“Razallian”, US 2019/0317941) and Boule et al. (“Boule”, US 2017/0357433) in view of Jung et al. (“Jung”, US 2014/0325435). As per claim 10, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth, Razallian and Boule teaches the application management method according to claim 9, wherein the application bar is configured to display the icons of the plurality of applications (Boule, para.203; Fig.6A, app menu 606 includes app 608, 612, 616; Fig.6C-6D, para.207-209), however does not teach the application management method further comprises: reducing the application bar by a preset multiple in response to receiving a second operation signal on the application bar; and enlarging the application bar to a preset state in response to receiving a third operation signal on the application bar. Jung teaches a method of displaying icons wherein reducing the application bar by a preset multiple in response to receiving an operation signal on the application bar (Jung, Fig.33, para.252, zoom-out operation reduces icons) and enlarging the application bar to a preset state in response to receiving another operation signal on the application bar (Jung, Fig.33, para.252, zoom-in operation enlarges icons). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Jung’s teaching with the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth, Razallian and Boule in order to include many objects within a screen (Jung, para.254). Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (“Lim”, US 2022/0075506), Kim et al. (“Kim”, US 2014/0096083), Shuttleworth et al. (“Shuttleworth”, US 2014/0189608) and Razallian et al. (“Razallian”, US 2019/0317941) in view of Hart et al. (“Hart”, US 10,331,311). As per claim 21, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian teaches the application management method according to claim 4, however does not teach in response to receiving the second trigger signal of the aggregation icon, displaying a detail-button; and in response to the detail-button being triggered, displaying detailed information of the plurality of applications of the same type. Hart teaches a method of displaying applications wherein in response to selection of a detail-button, displaying detailed information of the plurality of applications (Hart, Fig.2, selector 106; col.7, lines 17-32, list view displays detailed info). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Hart’s teaching with the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian in order to display further application information. Claim 23 is similar in scope to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM et al. (“Lim”, US 2022/0075506), Kim et al. (“Kim”, US 2014/0096083), Shuttleworth et al. (“Shuttleworth”, US 2014/0189608) and Razallian et al. (“Razallian”, US 2019/0317941) in view of Gabbai et al. (“Gabbai”, US 2017/0011136). As per claim 22, the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian teaches the application management method according to claim 1, however does not teach wherein the first search result of each of the plurality of applications of the same type comprises a progress of search and evaluation of search results. Gabbai teaches a method of searching wherein a search result comprises a progress of search and evaluation of search results (Gabbai, para.51, Fig.2A, search progress tab 220). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Gabbai’s teaching with the method of Lin, Kim, Shuttleworth and Razallian in order to inform the user of the status of the search. Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 22, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. 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. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shim et al. (US 9,436,753) teaches a method of creating channel categories for grouping applications. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm. 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, William L Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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. /S.M./ Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174 /WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 13, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12510876
MACHINE STATE VISUALIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12271745
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RECONCILING USER INTERACTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 08, 2025
Patent 12260841
MULTIPLE PRIMARY USER INTERFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 25, 2025
Patent 12248673
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ATTRIBUTING A SCROLL EVENT IN AN INFINITE SCROLL GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 11, 2025
Patent 12001661
Bound Based Contextual Zoom
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 04, 2024
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
30%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (+34.7%)
5y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 249 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month