DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/378,430 filed on March 25, 2026. Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 11, 15 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 Claims 3, 6-10, 13 and 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration.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 examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 25, 2025, has been entered.
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 amendment to Claims 11 and 20 has overcome the objection to the claims for minor informalities set forth in the Final Office Action mailed December 31, 2025. The objection to the claims for minor informalities is hereby withdrawn.
The amendment to Claims 1, 11 and 20 has overcome the rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Final Office Action mailed December 31, 2025. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
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, 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, 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 – as shown in Figure 4B, the new messaging window 410 displays and allows the user to reply to the incoming text message, i.e., processing unprocessed information displayed in the application interface corresponding to the notification message).
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:
Cheung et al., Pub. No. US 2004/0061716 A1, discloses a system for handling notifications and alerts from different sources wherein a displayed notification is provided with a snooze control button that defers the notification until a later time;
Guerra et al., Pub. No. US 2024/0004727 A1, discloses a method for presenting notifications wherein a received notification may be snoozed until the occurrence of a predetermined event; and
Zhu et al., Pub. No. US 2019/0230215 A1, discloses a method for pushing a notification wherein a notification page corresponding to the notification is displayed in response to a notification condition being met.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this 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