Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
2. The Amendment and Remarks filed 1/2/26 have been entered. Claims 12-25 are newly added. Claims 2-25 are pending. In view of the Applicant’s remarks, the previous non-final rejection has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting Analysis
3. This application is a continuation of SN 17/521159 filed 11/8/21, now US Patent 11762547, which is a continuation of SN 16/799587, filed 2/24/20, now US Patent 11169690, which is a continuation of SN 15/464248, filed 3/20/17, now US Patent 10572142, which is a continuation of SN 14/963044, filed 12/8/15, now US Patent 9600174, which is a continuation of SN 11/848208, filed 8/30/07, now US Patent 9304675. The features of the independent claims of the present application however distinguish over the claims of the parent patents. The features include while the electronic device is in a locked mode and a first application is presenting media at the electronic device: receiving a notification corresponding to a second application that is different from the first application; and in response to receiving a notification from the second application, displaying, via the display, the notification. Although these recited features may relate in a broader sense to portable electronic devices with interfaces, nevertheless they are distinct from the subject matter recited in the claims of the parent applications. Thus, a double patenting rejection would not be warranted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
6. Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, 20-22, and 24 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamzy et al “Hamzy” (US 2006/0129947 A1).
7. Regarding claim 2, Hamzy shows an electronic device comprising a display (Figure 1, para 6, 19, 21 show an electronic device such as a computer device with a display), and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (para 20-21, 41 show the memory storing application programs executed by a processor) the one or more programs including instructions for: while the electronic device is in a locked mode and a first application is presenting media at the electronic device (para 27, 33, 37 show the password protected screensaver which when invoked places the electronic device in a locked mode. Para 31, 33, 35 show that while in the locked screensaver mode, the application providing the screensaver may present media in the form of dynamic images on the screen. Note also para 21 shows the video graphics capability to do this), receiving a notification corresponding to a second application that is different from the first application (para 28, 31, 35, Figure 10 show receiving a notification which corresponds to a second application different from the screensaver and thus different than the application generating the screensaver media. Figure 8 shows for example the second application may be an email or word processing application); and in response to receiving a notification from the second application, displaying, via the display, the notification (Figure 8, 10, para 35 show that in response to receiving the notification from the second application [such as the email or word processing application], displaying the notification on the display).
8. Regarding claim 4, in addition to that mentioned for claim 2, while the electronic device is in the locked mode and the first application is presenting media at the electronic device (again para 27, 33, 37 show the password protected screensaver which when invoked places the electronic device in a locked mode. Para 31, 33, 35 show that while in the locked screensaver mode, the application providing the screensaver may present media in the form of dynamic images on the screen. Note also para 21 shows the video graphics capability to do this), detecting a first set of inputs, wherein the first set of inputs include a first input directed to the notification (Figure 8, para 37 show the user entering a password at the notification for the word processor); in response to detecting the first set of inputs that includes the first input directed to the notification, displaying, via the display, a user interface corresponding to the second application, wherein the user interface is different from the notification (Figure 8, para 37-38 show as a result of the user entering the password at the word processor notification, displaying the word processor content in its window which is different than the notification).
9. Regarding claim 5, in addition to that mentioned for claim 4, the notification includes a first graphical object being the part of the notification that is selected (Figure 8, para 35, 37-38 show the notification is a mini-window, which may have a text entry field, and which is selected for password entry and notification selection).
10. Regarding claim 6, in addition to that mentioned for claim 4, Hamzy shows in response to detecting the first set of inputs that includes the first input directed to the notification, ceasing displaying the notification (Figure 8, para 35, 37-38 show as a result of the user entering the password at the word processor notification, displaying the word processor content in its window and ceasing display of the notification).
11. Regarding claim 8, the notification corresponds to an electronic message (Figure 8, para 30, 36, 37 show the notification may correspond to an email message).
12. Claim 10, 13-15, and 17 show the same features as claim 2, 4-6, and 8 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons. In addition, para 70 shows the memory which is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
13. Claim 11, 20-22, and 24 show the same features as claim 2, 4-6, and 8 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
15. Claims 3, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamzi and Omoigui (KR 20060004909A).
(Please see the attached copy of Omoigui that numbers paragraphs in the same manner as that used in this Action).
16. Regarding claim 3, in addition to that mentioned for claim 2, Hamzi does not explicitly state that the first application presenting the media corresponds to one of a music player or browser per se, but rather it is an application providing the screensaver which presents the media. Omoigui however shows a browser which provides a screensaver that presents media (para 2525 shows a browser which provides screensaver functionality in a theatrical mode that provides dynamic display data. Para 2989 also shows the browser has the capability to present video and other media presentations, and thus the browser provided screensaver may be endowed with this functionality). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the browser provide the media presenting screensaver in Hamzi, as is done in Omoigui, because it would provide an efficient way to secure the screen with a screensaver. Doing so would also help to endow the screensaver with media presenting functionality.
17. Claim 12 shows the same features as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
18. Claim 19 shows the same features as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
19. Claims 7, 16, and 23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamzy and Seidl et al “Seidl” (WO 2006132834 A1).
(Please also see the previously attached copy of Seidl that numbers paragraphs in the same manner as that used in the Action).
20. Regarding claim 7, in addition to that mentioned for claim 2, as noted Hamzy shows the electronic device is in the locked mode and the first application is presenting media at the electronic device (again para 27, 33, 37 show the password protected screensaver which when invoked places the electronic device in a locked mode. Para 31, 33, 35 show that while in the locked screensaver mode, the application providing the screensaver may present media in the form of dynamic images on the screen. Note also para 21 shows the video graphics capability to do this). [Note Hamzy also shows detecting a first set of inputs, wherein the first set of inputs include a first input directed to the notification (Figure 8, para 37 show the user entering a password at the notification for the word processor)]. Hamzy does not explicitly show the notification includes a second graphical object such that in response to detecting a second set of inputs that includes a second input directed to the second graphical object, ceasing displaying the notification. Seidl however does show the notification includes a second graphical object such that in response to detecting a second set of inputs that includes a second input directed to the second graphical object, ceasing displaying the notification (para 114 shows in response to selecting an icon on the notification, closing the notification and removing it from being displayed the user interface. Note also that para 102, 107 show other graphical objects being provided on the notification and thus this particular graphical object used for closing the notification is indeed a second or different graphical object). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have this in the notification system of Hamzy, because it would provide a convenient and efficient way to avoid clutter on the user interface. Doing so would allow the user to proceed clearly with the application after having entered the password.
21. Claim 16 shows the same features as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
22. Claim 23 shows the same features as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
23. Claims 9, 18, and 25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamzy and Ng (US 2004/0075701 A1).
24. Regarding claim 9, in addition to that mentioned for claim 8, although Hamzy para 36, 39 does show the notifications themselves are displayed with nicknames, nevertheless Hamzy does not explicitly show that the message notification includes a name corresponding to a sender of the electronic message. However, Ng para 19, 21, Figure 1 do show displaying a message notification that includes a name corresponding to the sender of the message. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have this in the notification of Hamzy, because it would provide an efficient, streamlined way to present notification information to the user. Doing so would help the user to determine whether to select and unlock the notification and read the full message on the message application.
25. Claim 18 shows the same features as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
26. Claim 25 shows the same features as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
27. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new rejection.
Conclusion
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) Ludvig et al (US 2006/0064700 A1) shows a system for presenting notifications in which a viewer can select the notification to open an application and by which the notification is removed).
b) Deinlein et al (US 2006/0129935) shows a notification system which uses notifications by which to access applications such as an email application.
c) Ijichi et al (JP 2008026664 A) shows a notification system for a music player.
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN PAUL SAX whose telephone number is (571)272-4072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 Est.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at 571-272-4046. 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.
/STEVEN P SAX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights