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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 2/12/2026 and 1/14/2026 have been entered. Claims 16-18 have been added. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “further comprise time required to execute the task” and should apparently recite “further comprise the time required to execute the task” to reference the “time required to execute the task” previously introduced in claim 6. Similarly for claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Oomori et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0034208), referred to as Oomori herein [previously cited].
Chang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0090515), referred to as Chang herein [previously cited].
Murphy et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0162148), referred to as Murphy herein [previously cited].
Firestone et al. (US Parent Application Publication 2015/0277675), referred to as Firestone herein [previously cited].
Cramer et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0110599), referred to as Cramer herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oomori in view of Cramer in further view of Murphy in further view of Firestone.
Regarding claim 1, Oomori discloses an information handling system comprising: a processor;
an existing user workspace comprising (Oomori, Abstract with Fig. 2 with ¶0037-¶0040 – CPU executing instructions stored in hardware memory providing an adaptive interface based on a manipulation log of the user):
a data structure defining applications installed and available to a user; data available to the user; and a graphical user interface displayed to display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least one
and a workspace observer comprising a program of instructions embodied in non-transitory computer-readable media communicatively coupled to the processor and configured to, when read and executed by the processor (Oomori, Abstract with Fig. 2 with ¶0037-¶0040 – CPU executing instructions stored in hardware memory providing an adaptive interface based on a manipulation log of the user):
monitor interactions by the user with the existing user workspace of the information handling system (Oomori, Abstract with ¶0026-¶0028 – manipulation log of user inputs to the interface including timing, fields, and input devices);
based on the monitored interactions, determine metrics associated with the user’s execution of a task,
and if the workspace efficiency is below a threshold efficiency, generate a new user workspace to replace the existing user workspace that is predicted to increase the workspace efficiency above or to the threshold efficiency by (Oomori, ¶0045, ¶0072 – if the skill index is low, a lower difficulty UI is set. In the example given, a threshold of 3 is used to determine when to increase the interface difficulty. See also Fig. 5 with ¶0047-¶0048 – threshold for UI change with each proficiency index change. ¶0078-¶0082 – input tasks are anticipated based on a past manipulation log. The past inputs are used to assess future input tasks and corresponding likelihood of errors/inefficiencies. As a result, lists are re-ordered, notes are displayed, and highlights are implemented):
However, Oomori appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cramer discloses an adaptive user interface (Cramer, Abstract), including
arranging the icons associated with the applications on the display in a second layout predicted to increase the workspace efficiency (Cramer, Fig. 5B with ¶0053-¶0055 – adjusting icon layout to simplify the user interface for a user lacking in experience),
based on the monitored interactions, determine metrics associated with the user’s execution of a task, wherein the metrics comprise one or more of a type of task and a complexity associated with the task; and determine metrics associated with each of the predicted one or more tasks (Cramer, Fig. 2 with ¶0036-¶0041 and Table 1 – calculating a user experience level with an application interface based on the amount of time required to perform a task, whether the user has requested help, and whether the user has completed a tutorial, the user’s emotional state, errors, mouse movements, whether the task was completed, etc. The metrics are used to adapt the user interface. ¶0023 – experience level is determined in part by a history with the task. Fig. 3 with ¶0048 – adjustments can be based on the type of task. In the example, the interface is customized based on identifying the task of completing a loan application. See also, ¶0054 – reduce interface complexity for a given task and experience),
calculate, based on the monitored interactions of the user with the existing user workspace and the one or more predicted tasks to be executed, and their respective associated metrics, a workspace efficiency (Cramer, ¶0036 – speed with which the user completes tasks within the interface is used to determine efficiency. ¶0050 – identifying whether the adaptation resulted in completion of the task with improved efficiency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori to include determining metrics for predicted tasks to inform UI adaptation based on the teachings of Cramer. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a better understanding of the user’s skill level for individual features and tasks, and to provide assistance to help the user gain familiarity (Cramer, ¶0002-¶0003).
However, Oomori as modified appears not to expressly disclose modifying the data structure such that one or more applications predicted to increase the workspace efficiency are installed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Murphy discloses a user interface including predicting future tasks based on previous tasks performed (Murphy, Abstract, ¶0004), including
modifying the data structure such that one or more applications predicted to increase the workspace efficiency are installed (Murphy, Fig. 2 and ¶0004, ¶0035-¶0038, ¶0041 – predicted tasks are used to identify applications for executing the task and installing those in response to identification applications. ¶0014 – identification and installation of the application saves the user time. ¶0018 – database of applications and associated tasks. ¶0026 – database or data structure corresponding to installed applications),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori as modified to include installing applications based on predicted tasks based on the teachings of Murphy. The motivation for doing so would have been save the user time and improve the user experience by preventing the user from having to manually find and install the application (Murphy, ¶0014).
However, Oomori as modified appears not to expressly disclose windows. However, in the same field of endeavor, Firestone discloses a user interface for managing layouts, including managing information relevant to operator tasks (Firestone, Abstract with ¶0003), including
arranging the at least one active window and icons associated with the applications on the display in a second layout predicted to increase the workspace efficiency (Firestone, Figs. 2-3 with ¶0037-¶0034-¶0038, ¶0042-¶0044 – changing window display positioning elicits a faster operator response. Rules are determined based on reducing operator response time to govern window placement. Notifications can be displayed based on the window position change. ¶0027 – iconified windows. ¶0041 – signature events can be based on operator behavior deviating from expected operator interaction at a window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori as modified to include adjusting window layout based on the teachings of Firestone. The motivation for doing so would have been save the user time, effectively get the user’s attention, and elicit a more efficient response based on predictions from previous interactions (Firestone, ¶0042, ¶0044).
Regarding claim 2, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the workspace efficiency is based on times predicted for the user to complete the one or more predicted tasks using the existing user workspace (Oomori, Figs. 7-11 - ¶0050-¶0054 – time intervals for key manipulations and inputs. ¶0078-¶0082 – input tasks are anticipated based on a past manipulation log. The past inputs are used to assess future input tasks and corresponding likelihood of errors/inefficiencies).
Regarding claim 3, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the workspace observer is further configured to: monitor interactions by other users with respective other user workspaces; and generate the new user workspace based on the interactions by the user with the existing user workspace and based on the interactions by other users with respective other user workspaces (Oomori, ¶0058-¶0065 – comparison of manipulation log against beginner and expert user manipulation logs).
Regarding claim 6, Oomori discloses a method comprising: monitoring, by a workspace observer comprising a program of instructions embodied in non-transitory computer-readable media communicatively coupled to a processor of an information handling system, interactions by a user with an existing user workspace of the information handling system, wherein the workspace comprises (Oomori, Abstract with Fig. 2 with ¶0037-¶0040 – CPU executing instructions stored in hardware memory providing an adaptive interface based on a manipulation log of the user. Abstract with ¶0026-¶0028 – manipulation log of user inputs to the interface including timing, fields, and input devices):
a data structure defining applications installed and available to a user; data available to the user; and a graphical user interface displayed to a display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least one
based on the monitored interactions, determining metrics associated with the user’s execution of a task,
and if the workspace efficiency is below a threshold efficiency, generating, by the workspace observer, a new user workspace to replace the existing user workspace that is predicted to increase the workspace efficiency above or to the threshold efficiency by (Oomori, ¶0045, ¶0072 – if the skill index is low, a lower difficulty UI is set. In the example given, a threshold of 3 is used to determine when to increase the interface difficulty. See also Fig. 5 with ¶0047-¶0048 – threshold for UI change with each proficiency index change. ¶0078-¶0082 – input tasks are anticipated based on a past manipulation log. The past inputs are used to assess future input tasks and corresponding likelihood of errors/inefficiencies. As a result, lists are re-ordered, notes are displayed, and highlights are implemented):
However, Oomori appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cramer discloses an adaptive user interface (Cramer, Abstract), including
arranging the icons associated with the applications on the display in a second layout predicted to increase the workspace efficiency (Cramer, Fig. 5B with ¶0053-¶0055 – adjusting icon layout to simplify the user interface for a user lacking in experience),
based on the monitored interactions, determine metrics associated with the user’s execution of a task, wherein the metrics comprise one or more of a type of task, time required to execute the task, and a complexity associated with the task; and determine metrics associated with each of the predicted one or more tasks (Cramer, Fig. 2 with ¶0036-¶0041 and Table 1 – calculating a user experience level with an application interface based on the amount of time required to perform a task, whether the user has requested help, and whether the user has completed a tutorial, the user’s emotional state, errors, mouse movements, whether the task was completed, etc. The metrics are used to adapt the user interface. ¶0023 – experience level is determined in part by a history with the task. Fig. 3 with ¶0048 – adjustments can be based on the type of task. In the example, the interface is customized based on identifying the task of completing a loan application. See also, ¶0054 – reduce interface complexity for a given task and experience),
calculate, based on the monitored interactions of the user with the existing user workspace and the one or more predicted tasks to be executed, and their respective associated metrics, a workspace efficiency (Cramer, ¶0036 – speed with which the user completes tasks within the interface is used to determine efficiency. ¶0050 – identifying whether the adaptation resulted in completion of the task with improved efficiency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori to include determining metrics for predicted tasks to inform UI adaptation based on the teachings of Cramer. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a better understanding of the user’s skill level for individual features and tasks, and to provide assistance to help the user gain familiarity (Cramer, ¶0002-¶0003).
However, Oomori as modified appears not to expressly disclose modifying the data structure such that one or more applications predicted to increase the workspace efficiency are installed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Murphy discloses a user interface including predicting future tasks based on previous tasks performed (Murphy, Abstract, ¶0004), including
modifying the data structure such that one or more applications predicted to increase the workspace efficiency are installed (Murphy, Fig. 2 and ¶0004, ¶0035-¶0038, ¶0041 – predicted tasks are used to identify applications for executing the task and installing those in response to identification applications. ¶0014 – identification and installation of the application saves the user time. ¶0018 – database of applications and associated tasks. ¶0026 – database or data structure corresponding to installed applications),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori as modified to include installing applications based on predicted tasks based on the teachings of Murphy. The motivation for doing so would have been save the user time and improve the user experience by preventing the user from having to manually find and install the application (Murphy, ¶0014).
However, Oomori as modified appears not to expressly disclose windows. However, in the same field of endeavor, Firestone discloses a user interface for managing layouts, including managing information relevant to operator tasks (Firestone, Abstract with ¶0003), including
arranging the at least one active window and icons associated with the applications on the display in a second layout predicted to increase the workspace efficiency (Firestone, Figs. 2-3 with ¶0037-¶0034-¶0038, ¶0042-¶0044 – changing window display positioning elicits a faster operator response. Rules are determined based on reducing operator response time to govern window placement. Notifications can be displayed based on the window position change. ¶0027 – iconified windows. ¶0041 – signature events can be based on operator behavior deviating from expected operator interaction at a window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori as modified to include adjusting window layout based on the teachings of Firestone. The motivation for doing so would have been save the user time, effectively get the user’s attention, and elicit a more efficient response based on predictions from previous interactions (Firestone, ¶0042, ¶0044).
Regarding claim 7, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the workspace efficiency is based on times predicted for the user to complete the one or more predicted tasks using the existing user workspace (Oomori, Figs. 7-11 - ¶0050-¶0054 – time intervals for key manipulations and inputs).
Regarding claim 8, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above, and further discloses monitoring interactions by other users with respective other user workspaces; and generating the new user workspace based on the interactions by the user with the existing user workspace and based on the interactions by other users with respective other user workspaces (Oomori, ¶0058-¶0065 – comparison of manipulation log against beginner and expert user manipulation logs).
Regarding claim 11, Oomori an article of manufacture comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and computer-executable instructions carried on the computer-readable medium, the instructions readable by a processor, the instructions, when read and executed, for causing the processor to (Oomori, Abstract with Fig. 2 with ¶0037-¶0040 – CPU executing instructions stored in hardware memory providing an adaptive interface based on a manipulation log of the user):
monitor interactions by a user with an existing user workspace of an information handling system, wherein the existing user workspace comprises (Oomori, Abstract with ¶0026-¶0028 – manipulation log of user inputs to the interface including timing, fields, and input devices):
a data structure defining applications installed and available to a user; data available to the user; and a graphical user interface displayed to a display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least one
based on the monitored interactions, determine metrics associated with the user’s execution of a task,
if the workspace efficiency is below a threshold efficiency, generate a new user workspace to replace the existing user workspace that is predicted to increase the workspace efficiency above or to the threshold efficiency by(Oomori, ¶0045, ¶0072 – if the skill index is low, a lower difficulty UI is set. In the example given, a threshold of 3 is used to determine when to increase the interface difficulty. See also Fig. 5 with ¶0047-¶0048 – threshold for UI change with each proficiency index change. ¶0078-¶0082 – input tasks are anticipated based on a past manipulation log. The past inputs are used to assess future input tasks and corresponding likelihood of errors/inefficiencies. As a result, lists are re-ordered, notes are displayed, and highlights are implemented):
However, Oomori appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cramer discloses an adaptive user interface (Cramer, Abstract), including
arranging the icons associated with the applications on the display in a second layout predicted to increase the workspace efficiency (Cramer, Fig. 5B with ¶0053-¶0055 – adjusting icon layout to simplify the user interface for a user lacking in experience),
based on the monitored interactions, determine metrics associated with the user’s execution of a task, wherein the metrics comprise one or more of a type of task, time required to execute the task, and a complexity associated with the task; and determine metrics associated with each of the predicted one or more tasks (Cramer, Fig. 2 with ¶0036-¶0041 and Table 1 – calculating a user experience level with an application interface based on the amount of time required to perform a task, whether the user has requested help, and whether the user has completed a tutorial, the user’s emotional state, errors, mouse movements, whether the task was completed, etc. The metrics are used to adapt the user interface. ¶0023 – experience level is determined in part by a history with the task. Fig. 3 with ¶0048 – adjustments can be based on the type of task. In the example, the interface is customized based on identifying the task of completing a loan application. See also, ¶0054 – reduce interface complexity for a given task and experience),
calculate, based on the monitored interactions of the user with the existing user workspace and the one or more predicted tasks to be executed, and their respective associated metrics, a workspace efficiency (Cramer, ¶0036 – speed with which the user completes tasks within the interface is used to determine efficiency. ¶0050 – identifying whether the adaptation resulted in completion of the task with improved efficiency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori to include determining metrics for predicted tasks to inform UI adaptation based on the teachings of Cramer. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a better understanding of the user’s skill level for individual features and tasks, and to provide assistance to help the user gain familiarity (Cramer, ¶0002-¶0003).
However, Oomori as modified appears not to expressly disclose modifying the data structure such that one or more applications predicted to increase the workspace efficiency are installed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Murphy discloses a user interface including predicting future tasks based on previous tasks performed (Murphy, Abstract, ¶0004), including
modifying the data structure such that one or more applications predicted to increase the workspace efficiency are installed (Murphy, Fig. 2 and ¶0004, ¶0035-¶0038, ¶0041 – predicted tasks are used to identify applications for executing the task and installing those in response to identification applications. ¶0014 – identification and installation of the application saves the user time. ¶0018 – database of applications and associated tasks. ¶0026 – database or data structure corresponding to installed applications),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori as modified to include installing applications based on predicted tasks based on the teachings of Murphy. The motivation for doing so would have been save the user time and improve the user experience by preventing the user from having to manually find and install the application (Murphy, ¶0014).
However, Oomori as modified appears not to expressly disclose windows. However, in the same field of endeavor, Firestone discloses a user interface for managing layouts, including managing information relevant to operator tasks (Firestone, Abstract with ¶0003), including
arranging the at least one active window and icons associated with the applications on the display in a second layout predicted to increase the workspace efficiency (Firestone, Figs. 2-3 with ¶0037-¶0034-¶0038, ¶0042-¶0044 – changing window display positioning elicits a faster operator response. Rules are determined based on reducing operator response time to govern window placement. Notifications can be displayed based on the window position change. ¶0027 – iconified windows. ¶0041 – signature events can be based on operator behavior deviating from expected operator interaction at a window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori as modified to include adjusting window layout based on the teachings of Firestone. The motivation for doing so would have been save the user time, effectively get the user’s attention, and elicit a more efficient response based on predictions from previous interactions (Firestone, ¶0042, ¶0044).
Regarding claim 12, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the workspace efficiency is based on times predicted for the user to complete the one or more predicted tasks using the existing user workspace (Oomori, Figs. 7-11 - ¶0050-¶0054 – time intervals for key manipulations and inputs).
Regarding claim 13, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein monitor interactions by other users with respective other user workspaces; and generate the new user workspace based on the interactions by the user with the existing user workspace and based on the interactions by other users with respective other user workspaces (Oomori, ¶0058-¶0065 – comparison of manipulation log against beginner and expert user manipulation logs).
Regarding claim 16, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the metrics associated with the user's execution of the task further comprise time required to execute the task (Cramer, Fig. 2 with ¶0036-¶0041 and Table 1 – calculating a user experience level with an application interface based on the amount of time required to perform a task).
Regarding claim 17, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the metrics associated with the user's execution of the task further comprise time required to execute the task (Cramer, Fig. 2 with ¶0036-¶0041 and Table 1 – calculating a user experience level with an application interface based on the amount of time required to perform a task).
Regarding claim 18, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the metrics associated with the user's execution of the task further comprise time required to execute the task (Cramer, Fig. 2 with ¶0036-¶0041 and Table 1 – calculating a user experience level with an application interface based on the amount of time required to perform a task).
Claim(s) 4-5, 9-10, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oomori in view of Cramer in further view of Murphy in further view of Firestone in further view of Chang.
Regarding claim 4, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Oomori appears not to expressly disclose wherein the workspace observer is further configured to: prompt the user to approve updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace; and replace the existing user workspace with the new user workspace if the user approves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses an adaptive user interface to aid in user proficiency (Chang, Abstract), including
wherein the workspace observer is further configured to: prompt the user to approve updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace; and replace the existing user workspace with the new user workspace if the user approves (Chang, Fig. 4 with ¶0013, ¶0052 – at a user prompt, the user authorizes changes to the interface, including either adding or subtracting features. Features are added when the user is more proficient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori to include prompting the user to approve changes based on the teachings of Chang. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid surprising or confusing the user with changes to the interface, especially if those changes are not desired by the user.
Regarding claim 5, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 4 above, and further discloses wherein the workspace observer is further configured to generate another new user workspace if the user disapproves of updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace (Chang, Fig. 4 with ¶0013, ¶0052 – at a user prompt, the user authorizes changes to the interface, including either adding or subtracting features. Features are added when the user is more proficient. If the change is rejected, the process returns to monitor user interaction until a new interface modification is suggested).
Regarding claim 9, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 6 above. However, Oomori appears not to expressly disclose prompting the user to approve updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace; and replacing the existing user workspace with the new user workspace if the user approves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses an adaptive user interface to aid in user proficiency (Chang, Abstract), including
wherein the workspace observer is further configured to: prompt the user to approve updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace; and replace the existing user workspace with the new user workspace if the user approves (Chang, Fig. 4 with ¶0013, ¶0052 – at a user prompt, the user authorizes changes to the interface, including either adding or subtracting features. Features are added when the user is more proficient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori to include prompting the user to approve changes based on the teachings of Chang. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid surprising or confusing the user with changes to the interface, especially if those changes are not desired by the user.
Regarding claim 10, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 9 above, and further discloses generating another new user workspace if the user disapproves of updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace (Chang, Fig. 4 with ¶0013, ¶0052 – at a user prompt, the user authorizes changes to the interface, including either adding or subtracting features. Features are added when the user is more proficient. If the change is rejected, the process returns to monitor user interaction until a new interface modification is suggested).
Regarding claim 14, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above. However, Oomori appears not to expressly disclose prompt the user to approve updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace; and replace the existing user workspace with the new user workspace if the user approves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses an adaptive user interface to aid in user proficiency (Chang, Abstract), including
wherein the workspace observer is further configured to: prompt the user to approve updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace; and replace the existing user workspace with the new user workspace if the user approves (Chang, Fig. 4 with ¶0013, ¶0052 – at a user prompt, the user authorizes changes to the interface, including either adding or subtracting features. Features are added when the user is more proficient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface modification of Oomori to include prompting the user to approve changes based on the teachings of Chang. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid surprising or confusing the user with changes to the interface, especially if those changes are not desired by the user.
Regarding claim 15, Oomori as modified discloses the elements of claim 14 above, and further discloses generate another new user workspace if the user disapproves of updating the existing user workspace with the new user workspace (Chang, Fig. 4 with ¶0013, ¶0052 – at a user prompt, the user authorizes changes to the interface, including either adding or subtracting features. Features are added when the user is more proficient. If the change is rejected, the process returns to monitor user interaction until a new interface modification is suggested).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights