Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/431,904

USER INTERFACES FOR CREATING JOURNALING ENTRIES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 02, 2024
Priority
Feb 03, 2023 — provisional 63/483,263 +2 more
Examiner
BHARGAVA, ANIL K
Art Unit
2172
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
452 granted / 546 resolved
+27.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
7 currently pending
Career history
555
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
86.2%
+46.2% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 546 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 18/431,904 CTNF 87238 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Allowable Subject Matter Each of claims 4-6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of its base claim and any intervening claims set forth in this action and if rewritten to overcome all the objection(s) and/or rejection(s) set forth below in this action. Claim Objection 07-29-01 AIA Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: These claims recite the term "and/or", which is selective language, the examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claims should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For the purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0329475 A1 hereinafter Park) in view of Boyd et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0070129 A1 hereinafter Boyd) . With regard to claims 1, 7 and 8 , Park teaches a method, an electronic device, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising: at an electronic device <para 0043> in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices <fig 2 item 250, 260, para 0062, input devices, display>: displaying, via the display generation component, a first user interface <fig 13C>, including: a list of suggested content items for inclusion in a journal entry of a journaling application, wherein suggested content items of the list of suggested content items are included in the list of suggested content items based at least in part on data detected by an application different from the journaling application <a photo is selected from a gallery using the gallery application and the user can write a note (journal) using the note application fig 13C, para 0213>; and a respective user interface element that is selectable to cause concurrent display of the suggested content items of the list of suggested content items with a content entry region for journaling about the list of suggested content items <note interface is provided for providing a note when user when a flip indicator fig 13C item 1351 is selected, see fig 13C para 0212-0214>; one or more processors (claim 7); memory (claim 7); and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors (claim 7) Park does not appear to explicitly disclose remaining limitations in combination. In the same field of endeavor, Boyd teaches while displaying the first user interface, receiving, via the one or more input devices, an input <fig 7, 8 show a user interface for providing comments para 0106-0109>; and in response to receiving the input: in accordance with a determination that the input is directed to the list of suggested content items, displaying, via the display generation component, a second user interface including first data of the suggested content items, without displaying the content entry region <fig 9 shows suggested content item 902 without the comment entry region as shown in fig 8 “add a comment region” ; and in accordance with a determination that the input is directed to the respective user interface element, concurrently displaying, via the display generation component <see figs 6-8, where comment for the selected media can be provided para 0100-0110> : the suggested content items of the list of suggested content items <para 0105-0109>; and the content entry region <figs 7 item 714 “add a comment” region for the suggested content para 0105-0109>. Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Park, Boyd before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Park to include the teachings of Boyd, in order to obtain limitations taught by Boyd. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to receive comment and presenting the content With regard to claim 2 , this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Park teaches wherein: the second user interface includes first user interface elements including: a first user interface element corresponding to a first type of content item in the list of suggested content items, wherein the first user interface element visually indicates the first type, a number of content items of the first type, and/or other metadata associated with content items of the first type <figs 5A, 5B show types of media such as contacts, map, music can be shown>; and a second user interface element corresponding to a second type of content item in the list of suggested content items, wherein the second user interface element visually indicates the second type, a number of content items of the second type, and/or other metadata associated with content items of the second type <figs 5A, 5B show types of media such as contacts, map, music can be shown>. With regard to claim 3 , this claim depends upon claim 2, which is rejected above. In addition, Park teaches wherein: the first user interface element includes a first selectable option for excluding or including content items of the first type on a per first content item type basis <any of contacts/music can be selected see figs 5A, 5B para 01133-0140> ; and the second user interface element includes a second selectable option for excluding or including content items of the second type on a per second content item type basis <any of contacts/music can be selected see figs 5A, 5B para 0133-0140>. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chanda et al (US 2024/0037139) – see fig 7 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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. /ANIL K BHARGAVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/431,904 Page 2 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/431,904 Page 3 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/431,904 Page 4 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/431,904 Page 5 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/431,904 Page 6 Art Unit: 2172 Application/Control Number: 18/431,904 Page 7 Art Unit: 2172
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jul 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 16, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12682157
BLOCK LEVEL DOCUMENT REVISION
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12664378
GENERATING SUBSET(S) OF CANDIDATE LANGUAGES FOR TRANSLATION APPLICATION(S)
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12657252
CONTENT CREATIVE WEB BROWSER
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12650800
APPLICATION REPLICATION PLATFORM
2y 1m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12617275
SYMMETRIC HUMAN-MACHINE INTERFACE FOR HYBRID VEHICLE CONTROL
3y 0m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.5%)
3y 0m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 546 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month