DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/378,430 filed on June 30, 2026, has been entered. Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 3, 6-10, 13 and 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 4-5, 11, 14-15 and 20 are presently examined.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not persuasive.
Specifically, on pages 13-14 of the response filed June 30, 2026, Applicant argues, “In contrast, amended claim 1 requires ‘the delay processing operation being configured to trigger delay processing on the notification message, wherein different delay processing operations respectively correspond to different delay processing modes to perform delay processing on the notification message.’ Thus, unlike DeLuca, where different buttons reflect different end-user responses to the notification, amended claim 1 requires different delay processing operations corresponding to different delay processing modes to perform delay processing on the notification message, which is directed to an operation-to-mode mapping that implements different delay behaviors. For example, as further specified and claimed in amended claim 1, upon detecting a first delay processing operation, the terminal later jumps to the application interface corresponding to the notification message and processes unprocessed information in that application interface when the current application stops running. DeLuca does not disclose or suggest the claimed mapping of different delay operations to different delay processing modes, and therefore does not meet the requirements of the claimed delay processing operation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Figure 2 and described in at least paragraph 23, DeLuca discloses providing the user with options for managing displayed notification message 206, i.e., suppressing and ignoring. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “suppressing” and “ignoring” are different delay processing modes that are activated responsive to selection of the corresponding option (“Suppress” 210 and “Cancel” 212) displayed in the user interface 204, as ‘ignoring’ constitutes suppressing the notification message permanently/indefinitely. Selection of “Suppress” 210 and selection of “Cancel” 212 are different delay processing operations that correspond with the different delay processing modes.
Continuing on page 16 of the response, Applicant additionally argues: “In contrast, amended claim 1 recites ‘in response to the detected delay processing operation comprising a first delay processing operation, directly jumping, under a corresponding delay processing mode, from a currently running application interface to an application interface corresponding to the notification message on which the first delay processing operation is executed, while bypassing all other operations associated with the notification message, and processing unprocessed information displayed in the application interface corresponding to the notification message, when the terminal stops running the current application.’ Thus, unlike Heikes, which requires, when the specified predetermined condition is satisfied, executing two operations including activating a new messaging window that provides the user with notification of the incoming text message, and deactivating any current window such as the word-processing window, amended claim 1 requires directly jumping, under a corresponding delay processing mode, from a currently running application interface to an application interface corresponding to the notification message, while bypassing all other operations associated with the notification message, to process unprocessed information displayed in the application interface corresponding to the notification message. Therefore, Heikes does not meet the requirements of the claimed directly jumping step.”
First, for the reasons set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth below, the Examiner finds that the limitation, “while bypassing all other operations associated with the notification message,” argued by Applicant as providing non-obviousness over the prior art of record does not have sufficient written description support in the as-filed specification. Second, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, this feature is taught by Heikes. As shown in Fig. 4B and described in the associated disclosure in at least paragraphs 34-39, messaging window 410 presenting the newly arrived message, i.e., an application interface corresponding to the notification message, is displayed automatically by the client device when user activity the word processing window 400 is idle. As is clearly shown in Fig. 4B, message window 410 displays the newly received message and enables the user to enter a reply in window area 414, i.e., messaging window 410 processes the unprocessed information displayed in the messaging window. Messaging window 410 presenting the newly received message and enabling reply is displayed by the client device in response to the detection without requiring the user to interact with the received notification, which under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, is directly jumping to the messaging window associated with the notification message, i.e., an application interface corresponding to the notification message, while bypassing all other operations associated with the received notification.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 11, 14-15 and 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in response to the detected delay processing operation comprising a first delay processing operation, directly jumping, under a corresponding delay processing mode, from a currently running application interface to an application interface corresponding to the notification message on which the first delay processing operation is executed, while bypassing all other operations associated with the notification message, and processing unprocessed information displayed in the application interface corresponding to the notification message, when the terminal stops running the current application” in lines 12-18.
Paragraph [0053] of the specification states:
“In an embodiment, FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram illustrating a method of jumping to a processing interface corresponding to a notification message after stopping running a current application shown according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, and as shown in FIG. 5, when the terminal stops running the current application 301, it jumps to an interface 302 for processing the notification message (emphasis added).”
While paragraph [0053] and paragraphs [0051], [0055] and [0073] cited by Applicant disclose “jumping to an interface for processing the notification message”, the as-filed specification does not recite the feature “bypassing all other operations associated with the notification message”, nor anything, such as skipping operations, that could be construed as such. Indeed, the specification does not provide any further detail or explanation of what “jumping to an interface for processing the notification message” entails. Therefore, there is insufficient written description support for jumping to the interface “while bypassing all other operations associated with the notification message” as claimed.
Dependent Claims 4 and 5 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
Insofar as they recite similar claim elements, Claims 11 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 14 and 15 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 11 in view of their dependence thereon.
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, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca et al., Pub. No. US 2017/0244798 A1, hereby “DeLuca”, in view of Heikes et al., Pub. No. US 2011/0107257 A1, hereby “Heikes”.
Regarding Claim 1, DeLuca discloses “A notification message processing method (DeLuca fig. 3 and paragraphs 3 and 27: a method for managing push notifications on portable devices), comprising:
in response to determining that a terminal is triggered to display a notification message different from a current application, detecting, by the terminal running the current application, a delay processing operation on the notification message, the delay processing operation being configured to trigger delay processing on the notification message, wherein different delay processing operations respectively correspond to different delay processing modes to perform delay processing on the notification message (DeLuca figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-24 and 27-28: in response to displaying notification message 206 while an application is in use, portable device 102 detects selection of "Suppress" option 210, i.e., a delay processing operation on the notification message, by the user, the "Suppress" option being one of a plurality of delay options (see also "Accept" option 206 and "Cancel" option 212) that are selectable by the user); and
performing delay processing on the notification message based on the detected delay processing operation (DeLuca figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 24 and 29-31: portable device 102 suppresses notification message 206 in response to the selection of "Suppress" option 210);
wherein performing delay processing on the notification message based on the detected delay processing operation comprises:
in response to the detected delay processing operation comprising a first delay processing operation, directly jumping, under a corresponding delay processing mode, from a currently running application interface... when the terminal stops running the current application (DeLuca figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 26 and 30-33: portable device 102 displays suppressed notification message 206 in response to determining that the current application has been exited or terminated).”
However, while DeLuca discloses displaying an interface for interacting with the suppressed notification message in response to determining that the current application has been exited or terminated (DeLuca paragraphs 26 and 30-33), DeLuca does not explicitly disclose “in response to the detected delay processing operation comprising a first delay processing operation, directly jumping, under a corresponding delay processing mode, from a currently running application interface to an application interface corresponding to the notification message on which the first delay processing operation is executed, while bypassing all other operations associated with the notification message, and processing unprocessed information displayed in the application interface corresponding to the notification message, when the terminal stops running the current application (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Heikes discloses “directly jumping, under a corresponding delay processing mode, from a currently running application interface to an application interface corresponding to the notification message on which the first delay processing operation is executed, while bypassing all other operations associated with the notification message, and processing unprocessed information displayed in the application interface corresponding to the notification message (Heikes fig. 3B and 4B and paragraphs 32-39: after receiving notification of an incoming text message and in response to determining a predetermined condition is satisfied, client device 108 opens and activates new messaging window 410 corresponding to the received notification, i.e., an application interface corresponding to the received notification, automatically without requiring the user to interact with the received notification – as shown in Figure 4B, the new messaging window 410 displays the incoming text message, i.e., processing unprocessed information displayed in the application interface corresponding to the notification message, and allows the user to enter a reply).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of DeLuca to open and activate an application window corresponding to the suppressed notification in response to determining that the current application has been exited or terminated as taught by Heikes because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (opening and activating an application window corresponding to a received notification in response to determining a predetermined condition is satisfied) to known devices and/or methods (a method for managing push notifications on portable devices) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (automatically opening and activating an application window corresponding to the suppressed notification). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, DeLuca discloses “A notification message processing apparatus (DeLuca figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 3, 14 and 22: portable device 102), comprising:
a processor (DeLuca fig. 1 and paragraph 14: CPU 106);
a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor (DeLuca fig. 1 and paragraphs 14 and 17: persistent storage 108)”.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, DeLuca discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a processor of a terminal (DeLuca fig. 3 and paragraphs 3, 27 and 59-60: a computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions for managing push notifications on portable devices)”.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DeLuca and Heikes in view of Johnson et al., Pub. No. US 2018/0338035 A1, hereby “Johnson”.
Regarding Claim 4, DeLuca discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while DeLuca discloses that one or more suppressed notifications may be displayed as a list in response to determining the application has been exited or terminated (DeLuca paragraphs 26 and 33), the combination of DeLuca and Heikes does not explicitly disclose “in response to a plurality of notification messages, sequentially jumping to interfaces for processing the plurality of notification messages according to a priority sequence of the plurality of notification messages in response to determining that the terminal stops running the current application (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Johnson discloses “sequentially jumping to interfaces for processing the plurality of notification messages according to a priority sequence of the plurality of notification messages (Johnson figs. 6HA-6HH and paragraph 281: notification alerts 666a-c that were suppressed are sequentially displayed by device 600 in the order that the corresponding notifications 664a-c were received, i.e., a priority sequence, wherein dismissal of first notification alert 666a causes next notification alert 666c to be displayed).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the time of the effective filing to modify the method of DeLuca, as modified by Heikes, to sequentially display the plurality of suppressed notification messages in the order they were received as taught by Johnson because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (displaying a plurality of suppressed notifications as a list) for another (displaying a plurality of suppressed notifications sequentially based on the order they were received) to obtain predictable and desirable results (displaying of the suppressed notifications to the user). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of DeLuca, Heikes and Johnson discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4.
Additionally, Johnson discloses “wherein the priority sequence is from high to low and is determined according to a chronological sequence of first delay processing operations corresponding to the plurality of notification messages (Johnson figs. 6HA-6HH and paragraph 281: suppressed notification alerts 666a-c are sequentially displayed in the order the corresponding notifications were received, i.e., in a chronological order of the first delay processing operations).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the time of the effective filing to modify the method of DeLuca, as modified by Heikes, to sequentially display the plurality of suppressed notification messages in the order they were received as taught by Johnson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 4.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eriksson et al., Pub. No. US 2014/0026105 A1, discloses a method for snoozing an alarm notification wherein different swipe gestures are mapped to different snooze durations;
Mag et al., Pub. No. US 2015/0205379 A1, discloses a method for snoozing an alarm notification wherein a different numbers of tap inputs snoozes the alarm for different durations; and
Shen et al., Pub. No. US 2016/0239354 A1, discloses a method for interacting with an event notification wherein a notification deferment and notification disablement are activated using distinct input gestures, e.g., different touch gesture inputs.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights