DETAILED ACTION
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 .
General Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to Applicant’s Application filed 07/25/2025.
Application filed: 12/26/2023.
Applicant’s PgPUB: 2024/0126575
Claims:
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 21, 33, 39 and 40 are independent.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
IDS:
IDS filed 12/26/2023 has been considered.
Note: NPL references listed in this IDS (Widgets & Home Screen Quick Actions) were filed in Application 15/622,647 on 06/14/2017. There are no records of these references directly filed for this Application.
Priority/Continuity Data:
This Application is Continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 15/622,647 (Patent: 11,900,132) filed 06/14/2017.
Claim Interpretation:
Examiner Note: Claims 21, 27-29, 33 and 36-30 contain conditional claim limitations (i.e., based on) which may affect the patentable weight given to these claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the cited prior does not teach, “obtain data indicative of an expected occurrence of a second data exchange involving the device, the data comprising an expected value of a parameter of the second data exchanged” (limitation 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions.
Applicant argues Erman does not teach obtaining an expected value and location data is not an expected value. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Erman teaches in paragraph 0036, “in response to receiving and/or detecting new or updated application profile information associated with one or more applications, in response to detecting change of location of the user(s), and the like, as well as various combinations thereof). In this manner, the network is capable of pushing application recommendations to the users.” Recognition of change, in particular, change in location denotes an expected value because the system is able to receive and respond to changes, therefore, the data received is expected.
Further, the phrase “expected data” is a broad and somewhat nebulous term. Systems are programmed/built to except and respond to certain inputs and data. Further, systems are programmed/built with error handling. This means they expect to receive bad information and provide mechanisms for how to handle it.
Because Erman is able to receive and use location information, it expects that the location of the user/phone is able to change because it uses that information to provide recommendations (i.e., expected occurrence). Therefore, the teachings of Erman cover the claim limitations as they are currently stated.
Also, Applicant also argues that the cited prior does not teach the “when a determined value of the parameter …” (limitation 3) and “based on a selection of the second interface …” (limitation 4). This conclusion appears predicated on the arguments of limitation 2 (recited above). Further, no arguments were presented to directly address these particular limitations.
Regarding, limitation 3, Paragraph 0141-0142 of Erman teaches the AppGuide icon (Fig. 5, 512.5) may be changed in response to any suitable trigger condition. For example, the trigger condition may be a determination that recommended application information has been received.
Regarding, limitation 4, Fig. 6A and paragraphs 0164¶0172 of Erman teaches that selection of the recommended apps that can lead to a variety of data exchanges (i.e., second data exchange) such buy, try or recommend).
Lastly, as a general note, the independent claims describe a system with a first UI element (i.e., FUI) from a first data exchange (i.e., FDX), the device then receives data based off an occurrence of a second data exchange, the FUI is then modified if the received data meets a criteria and a second UI element is revealed (i.e., SUI) and the SUI becomes usable.
Beyond the teachings of Erman, the current claim setup is relatively common in UX/UI programming. As data is received based on user actions, other elements become available or unavailable. For instance, a system may require that user answer questions or go through certain steps so other parts of the application or program become accessible. For example, if a student is taking an online course, typically, a student would be required to take/review the course material before a test becomes available. This is well-known within the art.
Given the reasonings above and the teachings of the prior art, the claim limitations, as they are currently stated, are covered by the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-25, 31, 33, 34 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0307354 to Erman et al. (“Erman”).
As to claim 21, Erman discloses:
a device (Fig. 4, 110, Mobile Device of Erman), comprising:
a communications unit (Fig. 4, Communication I/F, 430 of Erman);
a storage unit storing instructions (Fig. 4, Memory, 420 of Erman); and
at least one processor coupled to the storage unit (Fig. 4 of Erman), the at least processor being configured to execute the instructions to:
present a first interface element within an interface (Fig. 5, AppGuide, 512.5), the first interface element being representative of a first data exchange involving the device (¶0031, ¶0141, ¶0142 – Erman teaches that then AGS (i.e. server) responds to a user based on suitable triggers (i.e., data exchange) and the AppGuide is responsive to the data exchange (i.e., indicative));
obtain data indicative of an expected occurrence of a second data exchange involving the device, the data comprising an expected value of a parameter of the second data exchange (Fig. 6D, ¶0036, ¶0095, ¶0192 – Erman teaches tracking the location of a user via GPS (i.e., obtain data indicative of an expected occurrence). Location information is used as a trigger to recommend applications (i.e., second data exchange));
when a determined value of the parameter is consistent with the expected parameter value (¶0035, ¶0036 – Erman teaches that when a user device location has changed, a trigger occurs (i.e. consistent with expected parameter) recommended applications are sent to the user), modify the first interface element and present the modified first interface element (Fig. 5, AppGuide, 512.5) and a second interface element representative of the second data exchange ((Fig. 5, Recommended Apps, 513) within the interface (Fig. 5, ¶0140-¶0143, 0153 – Erman teaches that when the server (i.e, AGS) determines a trigger (i.e., change in location), then the server sends recommended apps to the user and the AppGuide icons changes accordingly);
based on a selection of the second interface element, perform operations that initiate the second data exchange in accordance with the expected parameter value (Fig. 6A, ¶0164-¶0172 – Erman teaches that selection of the recommended apps that can lead to a variety of data exchanges (i.e., second data exchange) such buy, try or recommend).
As to claim 22, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
wherein:
a boundary of the first interface element encloses a corresponding portion of the interface (Fig. 5, AppGuide, 512.5 of Erman – this icon takes up or encloses a portion of the display screen or main screen);
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to present, within the corresponding portion of the interface, (i) at least a portion of the modified first interface element and (ii) the second interface element (Fig. 5 of Erman).
As to claim 23, Erman discloses:
device of claim 22,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to present the modified first interface element and the second interface element within the corresponding portion of the interface (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 7 of Erman).
As to claim 24, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
further comprising
a display unit coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to display the interface on the display unit, present the first interface element within the interface via the display unit, and present the modified first interface element and the second interface element within the interface via the display unit (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 7 of Erman).
As to claim 25, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
further comprising
an input unit coupled to the at least one processor,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to receive the selection of the second interface element from the input unit (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6A, Fig. 7 of Erman).
As to claim 31, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21, and
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to receive the determined parameter value from a sensor, the sensor being coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 6D, ¶0036, ¶0095, ¶0192 – Erman teaches tracking the location of a user via GPS (i.e., obtain data indicative of an expected occurrence). Location information is used as a trigger to recommend applications).
As to claim 33, similar rejection as to claim 21.
As to claim 34, similar rejection as to claim 22.
As to claim 39, similar rejection as to claim 21.
As to claim 40, similar rejection as to claim 21.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 26, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0307354 to Erman et al. (“Erman”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,318,001 B1 to Spears et al. (“Spears”).
As to claim 26, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
Spears discloses what Erman does not expressly disclose.
Spears discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to receive, via the communications unit, the data indicative of the expected occurrence of the second data exchange from a computing system (Abstract, col. 6 ll. 15-22 – Spears teaches dynamically determining the flow of screens to be presented in a user interface (UI) of an application executing on a computing device, based at least partly on a detected presence of a user device (e.g., a portable computing device) in a particular geographic area as well as prefetching data), the computing system being configured to determine the expected parameter value based on an application of a trained machine learning or artificial intelligence process to additional data characterizing prior data exchanges involving the device (Fig. 2, col. 8 ll. 47-67 – Spears teaches use of machine learning and/or AI to determine what user data to present to a user and determine UI flow and this is used to refine/retain a model as well as provide a more efficient initial state of an application based on the presence of a user in a service area).
Erman and Spears are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to conditional access and GUI display.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate GUI triggers as discussed in Spears with conditional display system as discussed in Erman by adding the functionality of Spears to the system/method of Erman in order to modify an application flow based on the determined location of a computing device (Spears, col. 1 ll. 29-38).
As to claim 32, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
wherein:
the storage unit stores additional data characterizing prior data exchanges involving the device (Fig. 1A/B, User ID, Biometric Data, of Spears); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
load the additional data from the storage unit (Fig. 1A/B, User ID, Biometric Data, of Spears);
generate an expected value of additional parameter that characterizes the second data exchange based on an analysis of the additional data (col. 7 ll. 59-col. 8 ll. 6 – Spears teaches analyzing the biometric state of a user when they are in a designated area and the UI will changed based on their state (e.g., calm (expect), agitate (analyzed state)); and
when the determined parameter value is consistent with the expected parameter value and the additional expected parameter value, modify the first interface element and present the modified first interface element (Fig. 3, 118) and the second interface element within the interface (Fig. 3, 204) (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, col. 7 ll. 59-col. 8 ll. 6 – Spears teaches analyzing the biometric state of a user when they are in a designated area and the UI will changed based on their state (e.g., calm (expect), agitate (analyzed state)).
As to claim 35, similar rejection as to claim 26.
Claims 27-30 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0307354 to Erman et al. (“Erman”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0201681 A1 to Mahaffey et al. (“Mahaffey”).
As to claim 27, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
Mahaffey discloses what Erman does not expressly disclose.
Mahaffey discloses:
wherein:
the expected parameter value comprises an expected date or time of the second data exchange;
the determined parameter value comprises a current date or time (Abstract, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, ¶0039 – Mahafeey teaches altering the display of application icons based usage and context such a time (location, particular time or time frame (i.e., Morning)); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine that the current date or time falls within a threshold time period of the expected date or time (Abstract, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, ¶0039, ¶0050 – Mahafeey teaches altering the display of application icons based usage and context such a time (location, particular time or time frame (i.e., Morning)); and
based on the determination that the current date or time falls within the threshold time period of the expected date or time, modify the first interface element and present the modified first interface element and the second interface element within the interface (Figs. 5-7, ¶0050 – Mahafeey teaches that icons can be modified, added or removed based on certain context. Examiner note, icons that are modified would be representative to a modified first interface element and icons that are added would be representative to a second interface element).
Erman and Mahafeey are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to conditional access and GUI display.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate GUI triggers as discussed in Mahafeey with conditional display system as discussed in Erman by adding the functionality of Mahafeey to the system/method of Erman in order to provide full automation of tasks associated with displaying and organizing application icons for efficient display and effective interface strategies (Mahafeey, ¶0005).
As to claim 28, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
Mahaffey discloses what Erman does not expressly disclose.
Mahaffey discloses:
wherein:
the expected parameter value comprises a range of expected dates or times of the second data exchange (Abstract, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, ¶0039 – Mahafeey teaches altering the display of application icons based usage and context such a time (location, particular time or time frame (i.e., Morning)); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine that a current time or date falls within the range of expected dates or times (Abstract, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, ¶0039, ¶0050 – Mahafeey teaches altering the display of application icons based usage and context such a time (location, particular time or time frame (i.e., Morning)); and
based on the determination that the current time or date falls within the range of expected dates or times, modify the first interface element and present the modified first interface element and the second interface element within the interface (Figs. 5-7, ¶0050 – Mahafeey teaches that icons can be modified, added or removed based on certain context. Examiner note, icons that are modified would be representative to a modified first interface element and icons that are added would be representative to a second interface element).
As to claim 29, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
Mahaffey discloses what Erman does not expressly disclose.
Mahaffey discloses:
wherein:
the expected parameter value comprises an expected location of the second data exchange (Abstract, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, ¶0039 – Mahafeey teaches altering the display of application icons based usage and context such a time (location, particular time or time frame (i.e., Morning));
the determined parameter value comprises a geographic position of the device (Abstract, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, ¶0039 – Mahafeey teaches altering the display of application icons based usage and context such a time (location, particular time or time frame (i.e., Morning)); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine that the geographic position of the device is disposed within a threshold distance of the expected location (Abstract, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, ¶0039, ¶0050 – Mahafeey teaches altering the display of application icons based usage and context such a time (location, particular time or time frame (i.e., Morning)); and
based on the determination that the geographic position of the device falls within the threshold distance of the expected location, modify the first interface element and present the modified first interface element and the second interface element within the interface (Figs. 5-7, ¶0050 – Mahafeey teaches that icons can be modified, added or removed based on certain context. Examiner note, icons that are modified would be representative to a modified first interface element and icons that are added would be representative to a second interface element).
As to claim 30, Erman discloses:
device of claim 21,
Mahaffey discloses what Erman does not expressly disclose.
Mahaffey discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to executed the instructions to:
generate a third interface element when the determined parameter value is inconsistent with the expected parameter value, the third interface element comprising contextual information that identifies the established inconsistency (Fig. 7, 706, ¶0055 – Mahaffey teaches using a badge as an indicator (i.e., third interface element) that informs a user that an application will be removed due to lack of use (i.e., inconsistent expected parameter values)); and
present the third interface element within an additional portion of the interface, the contextual information being visible within the interface (Fig. 7, 706 of Mahafeey).
As to claim 36, similar rejection as to claim 27.
As to claim 37, similar rejection as to claim 28.
As to claim 38, similar rejection as to claim 29.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR A ELFERVIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (10:00 AM CST) - Friday (4:00 PM CST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAYLOR A ELFERVIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445