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 .
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20 have currently been amended. No new claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments, pgs.6-8, regarding the rejection of the instant application under 35 USC 103, the examiner concedes that Burks in view of Warila does not disclose the independent claim as amended. Specifically- the input being configured for a set of actions among a plurality of available sets of actions associated with the application, or selecting a next action based upon context information. As such, the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 do not rely upon Burks or Warila to disclose these limitations- rather they rely upon Pizi (US 5878258 A) and Johansson (US 20170168691 A1).
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (US 20170168691 A1) in view of Pizi (US 5878258 A).
As per claim 1, Johansson discloses:
A method, comprising: receiving, by an abstraction layer, an indication of a detected user input via a button of a device, wherein the button is a configurable input component of the device, wherein the detected user input corresponds to an application executing on the device (“Further, the user may specify the purpose of each of the one or more user interface buttons 208. As an illustrative example, the user can configure a user interface button 208 such that if the user interface button 208 is selected, the user device 202 may transmit an order request for an item to a service on behalf of the user. This user interface button 208 may be available to the user through the graphical control element 204 or other feature of the GUI unless the user later changes the configuration of the user interface button 208 or removes the user interface button 208 altogether.“, 0034 ; “The application may detect selection of the user interface button 106 to submit an order for the specified item. “, 0028 ; Examiner Note: the button which is available through the GUI is necessarily abstracted because it is implemented as an abstract class or model which defines behavior and is specialized for different contexts)
identifying, by an abstraction layer, a set of actions from a plurality of available sets of actions hosted by the application, (“The user may further specify, through the application, a set of actions that may be performed in response to selection of the user interface button presented to the user.“, 0017 ; “In response to selection of the user interface button, the application may generate a request, on behalf of the user, to perform one or more actions as specified by the user or through the inputs provided by the service.”, 0019)
selecting, by the abstraction layer and based on the context information, a next action of the set of actions causing, by the abstraction layer, the application to perform the selected next action. (“In response to selection of the user interface button, the application may generate a request, on behalf of the user, to perform one or more actions as specified by the user or through the inputs provided by the service.”, 0019 ; “In an example, if the application detects the activity trigger, the application determines the configuration of the user interface to be presented to the user based on the information provided by the user through the initial configuration of the button.”, 0018 ; Examiner Note: the activity of the user equates to context information)
obtaining context information from the application; (“FIG. 9 shows an illustrative example of a process for configuring a monitoring component to monitor selected signals to identify one or more activities in response to configuration of at least one user interface button in accordance with at least one embodiment”, 0011 ; Examiner Note: the selected signals which are monitored equate to context information)
Johansson discloses the above limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the set of actions being defined based on a user configuration, rather than user selection.
However, Pizi discloses:
wherein the set of actions is identified based on a user configuration (“ As discussed above, the user context provides the initial values for a particular user ID and/or role, which is then applied to access the pre-set button codes and configures the buttons (button icons) 160 to that user in that role. When a user logs on to the system, the user is queried for a user identification code (alphanumerical, such as the user's name, and/or numerical, such an identification number). The user may also be prompted for the user's role (e.g., account manager, account manager supervisor) if there is no default condition set for the role. The system processes the user and the user's role to create the user context sensitive links for use of the application by that user.”, col.5-6, lines 61-5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Johansson with those of Pizi in order to enhance the performance of the applications through the use of an automated initial configuration which frees up resources for use by the applications (Pizi, [col.6, lines 43-47]).
As per claim 8, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium (see Johansson [0109] : “In some embodiments, the code is stored on set of one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed (i.e., as a result of being executed) by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations described herein.”) claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 15, it is a system (see Johansson [0109] : “In some embodiments, the code is stored on set of one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed (i.e., as a result of being executed) by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations described herein.”) claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (US 20170168691 A1) in view of Pizi (US 5878258 A) in further view of Raju (US 20170111455 A1).
As per claim 2, Johansson in view of Pizi fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose that determining context information comprises determining a currently active session which has associated actions.
However, Raju discloses:
obtaining the context information comprises determining a currently active session (“In yet another embodiment, the OS of the client 120 may be queried to determine the current active mode (the current active session, the current active application, or both) or the active window may be monitored to detect changes”, 0045)
the set of actions are associated with the currently active session (“In one embodiment, a table at the client 120 stored in a memory 604 or storage 604 (as described with respect to FIG. 6) may include an entry for each session initiated at the client 120 and any associated applications.", 0038)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Johansson in view of Pizi with those of Raju ([0045]) in order to provide a means for determining the currently active session, which may be used to inform action selection. Raju teaches associating a set of actions with user sessions for improved system responsiveness and context-aware processing. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, would have recognized that determining a currently active session is a fundamental step in context determination, and associating actions with that session is a predictable and routine optimization to maintain consistent user experience. Given the market incentives to improve session management and user interface responsiveness, and the well-known interchangeability of session-based context tracking, combining Johanssons’ context and set of actions with Raju’s association of a session with a set of actions would have been an obvious and expected modification. This combination requires no inventive leap but rather reflects a straightforward application of known techniques to achieve predictable results, consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance in KSR Int’l Co. v. Tleflex, Inc, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
As per claim 9, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium (see Johansson [0109]) claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 16, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (US 20170168691 A1) in view of Pizi (US 5878258 A) in further view of Brown (US 20160028875 A1).
As per claim 3, Johansson in view of Pizi fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a set of actions being defined by an application.
However, Brown discloses:
the set of actions are defined by the application ("The eligible actions that are included in sets 810 and 820 may be defined by the custodian application 220", 0089)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Johansson in view of Pizi with those of Brown, in order to provide a system which improves the efficiency of processing of event notifications (equating to button presses in this context) (see Brown, [0097]).
As per claim 4, Johansson in view of Pizi fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the set of actions being identified in accordance with user profile data.
However, Brown discloses:
the set of actions are further identified in accordance with user profile data indicating a user-defined configuration for the configurable input component ("While each custodian application 220 corresponding to a given communication message type may define the available additional actions to be displayed in arrays 450 and 750, some configuration of the user interface elements included in the array may be carried out by the user. FIG. 8 illustrates an example view 800 for selecting actions for each of the first and second action user interface elements of the array from available sets 810 and 820, respectively. The eligible actions that are included in sets 810 and 820 may be defined by the custodian application 220 and/or the unified event manager 260.", 0089 ; “displaying the view in the second mode, each displayed listing of the view in the second mode comprising a user interface element for initiating the first action and at least one additional user interface element for initiating an additional action operating on the corresponding communication event, different sets being provided for communication events of different communication event types or different accounts.", 0028Examiner Note: the configurable user interface equates to a configurable input. The user account which the set of actions are associated with equates to user profile data)
As per claim 5, Johansson in view of Pizi fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the set of actions comprising a plurality of progressive application-performable actions.
However, Brown discloses:
the set of actions comprise a plurality of progressive application-performable actions ("As summarized in Table 3 above, for example, once a “delete” action is selected, the “delete” action user interface element in the view 400 is replaced with an “undo” action user interface element.", 0099 ; "Thus, “actuation” of a user interface element can include conventional user input operating on the user interface element so as to provide a signal or instruction to the executing application or OS that a particular action represented by the user interface element is to be carried out.", 0064 ; Examiner Note: being carried out by the executing application necessitates being application-performable)
As per claim 10, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 11, it a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 4, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 12, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 5, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 17, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 18, it a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 4, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 19, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 5, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (US 20170168691 A1) in view of Pizi (US 5878258 A) in view of Goldman-Shenhar (US 20170174230 A1).
As per claim 6, Johansson in view of Pizi fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an abstraction layer being used to cause the application to perform the next action without indicating a user input was detected.
However, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
the abstraction layer causes the application to perform the selected next action without indicating that the user input is detected via the configurable input component ("Where the user request is made using hardware (e.g., buttons or touchscreens) and/or graphical interfaces or previously stored speech and/or gestures, the system 130 knows the level of abstraction of the user inputs. Based on this level of abstraction, a system determines what sequence of commands will be sent to the vehicle systems and subsystems for execution. In one embodiment, another intelligent system, distinct from the functional system 130, determines what sequence of commands will be sent to the vehicle systems and subsystems for execution.", 0063 ; Examiner Note: system 130 detects the user input, and either system 130 or an intelligent system sends a sequence of commands- not including a notification of a detection of a user input- to a vehicle system, equating to an application, for execution)
The system of Johansson in view of Pizi in further view of Goldman-Shenhar would provide a user configurable input component which causes an application to perform a next action via an abstraction layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Johansson in view of Pizi with those of Goldman-Shenhar, in order to provide a system which improves the user experience by rearranging, or configuring, the interface system parameters according to human needs and understanding (Goldman-Shenhar, [0007]).
As per claim 13, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 6, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 6, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johansson (US 20170168691 A1) in view of Pizi (US 5878258 A) in view of Lin (US 11157259 B1).
As per claim 7, Johansson in view of Pizi fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the context information being determined, in part, by state information received from an application.
However, Lin discloses:
the context information is determined, in part, by state information received from the application ("As a user interacts with application 122, application 122 may transmit user-provided data and context information to application server 130 for processing. The context information may include device information (e.g., the type of device, the operating environment in which application 122 is being executed on client device 120, capabilities of the client device 120, and the like) and application state information.", col.6, lines 3-27 ; Examiner Note: the context information including state information necessitates that context information is partially determined by state information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Johansson in view of Pizi with those of Lin in order to implement a configurable button with associated context and state information in a way which reduces the amount of time needed to develop, update, and deploy applications across platforms (see Lin, [col.1, lines 51-55], [col.2, lines 26-48]).
As per claim 14, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 7, and accordingly it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lydon (US 20080034129 A1) – discloses a method, system, and interface for transferring status information between a media player and an accessory. Includes determining when a button event occurs, and transmitting, by the accessory, at least one button status command to the media player, wherein the button status commands comprise context-specific button status commands.
Gilbert (US 10120735 B2) - discloses a system, method, and apparatus for touch input systems in computing environments. An interaction service is logically positioned between an operating system and an application. Comprises determining what action to perform in response to user input as per the interaction class.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS MICHAEL VINCENT whose telephone number is (703)756-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/R.M.V./
Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights