DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on June 24, 2026. Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith.
Claims 1-19 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment dated June 24, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4-1. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “updating display information in a program screen of the target application program and loading information in the program screen of the target application program.” Firstly, it is unclear whether the “updating display information” pertains to only the program screen of the target application program, or pertains to both the program screen of the target application program and the loading information, with “loading” used as an adjective to describe “information”. Secondly, it is unclear whether the term “loading” is used as a verb or an adjective to describe “information.” Although Applicant states that the “updating” should be interpreted as updating both the display information in the program screen of the target application program and the loading information in the program screen of the target application program (see Applicant’s remarks dated 6/24/26, page 12), 35 U.S.C. 112(b) requires definiteness of claim language to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. See MPEP 2173, paragraph 3. A lower threshold for ambiguity during prosecution as opposed to during court proceedings involving infringement and validity is applied because the patent record is in development and not fixed during examination, and the agency does not rely on it for interpreting claims. See MPEP 2173.02(I). Applicant has the ability to amend the claims during prosecution to ensure that the meaning of the language is clear and definite prior to issuance or provide a persuasive explanation (with evidence as necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.
4-2. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the updating content of the display information” and “the updating content of the display information of the target widget” in [lines 9-11] of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, since the claim does not initially recite updating of any content.
4-3. Independent claims 7 and 13 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and are thus, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (U.S. Patent No. 12,346,553).
6-1. Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, and 19, Yang teaches the claim comprising: displaying a target widget of a target application program, wherein a different target application program corresponds to a different target widget, by disclosing displaying a widget or widget set in response to a first operation on a target icon, wherein the target icon may be an icon of an application, and each widget corresponds to an application [column 12, lines 10-13; 45-53].
Yang teaches wherein the target widget comprises at least one of a function component and a module component, by disclosing that the displayed widget or widget set may display one or more components, wherein the one or more components may be operated on to enter a specific interface in an application corresponding to the widget, or implement a corresponding function [column 20, lines 3-9].
Yang teaches receiving a first input on the target widget, by disclosing that input may be performed on the displayed widget [column 13, lines 34-39; column 14, lines 18-24; column 16, lines 55-59; column 17, lines 39-47; column 20, lines 5-9; column 21, line 65 to column 22, line 4; column 22, lines 15-25].
Yang teaches in response to the first input, updating display information of the target widget, by disclosing that a display sequence of widgets may be set based on the order of last used widgets or use frequency [column 24, lines 39-53]. Thus, an input on a widget to use the widget may change the order of what widget will be displayed either when switching from the target icon to a widget or when scrolling through widgets. Further, a user may provide input on the displayed widget to switch to display of another widget [column 14, lines 18-24; column 21, line 65 to column 22, line 4; column 22, lines 15-25] and input to open the application corresponding to the widget [column 20, lines 5-9], which would update the appearance of the widget such that the widget will no longer be seen by the user. Examiner notes that the limitation "updating display information of the target widget" may be interpreted as updating the appearance of the widget displayed on the screen, as well as updating any information that would affect what information associated with the widget will be displayed on the screen, such as an arrangement order.
Yang teaches in response to the first input, updating display information in a program screen of the target application program and loading information in the program screen of the target application program, by disclosing that user input on a widget displays a specific interface of an application corresponding to the widget [column 20, lines 5-9]. Rendering an initial view of an application may be considered a first screen update of the application, wherein subsequent updates occur upon interaction with the application. Therefore, user input on a widget to display a specific interface of an application corresponding to the widget [column 20, lines 5-9] would be considered as updating display information in a program screen of the target application program. This also teaches "loading information in a program screen of the target application program" because a specific interface of the application corresponding to the widget will be loaded with the appropriate information required to display it.
Yang teaches wherein the updating content of the display information and loading information in the program screen of the target application program are associated with the updating content of the display information of the target widget, by disclosing that opening the application corresponding to the widget [column 20, lines 5-9] to load appropriate information required to display it, changes the order of what widget will be displayed either when switching from the target icon to a widget or when scrolling through widgets since a display sequence of widgets may be set based on the order of last used widgets or use frequency [column 24, lines 39-53]. Opening the application corresponding to the widget [column 20, lines 5-9] to load appropriate information required to display it would also update the display information of the widget such that the widget will no longer be seen by the user. Thus, an association exists between opening the application corresponding to the widget to load appropriate information required to display it, and the updating of content of the display information of the target widget.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (U.S. Patent No. 12,346,553) in view of Wu (Pub. No. US 2019/0354266).
8-1. Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Yang teaches all the limitation of claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively. Yang does not expressly teach wherein the first input comprises an input for deleting a first module component in the target widget; and the updating display information of the target widget and the updating display information in a program screen of the target application program and loading information in the program screen of the target application program comprise: deleting the first module component; prohibiting loading of data of a module corresponding to the first module component in the target application program; and deleting display content of the module corresponding to the first module component in the program screen of the target application program. Wu discloses displaying widgets wherein each of the widgets can be interacted with by a user [paragraph 61]. A widget comprises multiple modules where each module may be removed from the display based on user input [paragraphs 64, 67]. When a module is removed from display, resources of the removed module are deactivated [paragraph 69]. This would allow the user to customize widgets while also preserving resources to improve performance of the electronic device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow user input to delete a module from a widget, as taught by Wu. This would allow the user to customize widgets while also preserving resources to improve performance of the electronic device.
9. Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (U.S. Patent No. 12,346,553), in view of Huang (CN 102968328A), and further in view of Lundgren et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,246,771).
9-1. Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15, Yang teaches all the limitation of claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively, wherein the target widget comprises at least one module component and at least one function component, by disclosing that the displayed widget or widget set may display one or more components, wherein the one or more components may be operated on to enter a specific interface in an application corresponding to the widget, or implement a corresponding function [column 20, lines 3-9].
Yang does not expressly teach the first input comprises at least one sub-input for deleting all module components in the target widget; and the updating display information of the target widget and the updating display information in a program screen of the target application program and loading information in the program screen of the target application program comprise: uninstalling the target application program. Huang discloses receiving an input on a widget of an application to display a dialog box with options for offloading the application, deleting widget options, updating widget options, and/or updating terminal application options [paragraphs 37-38]. The user may then provide input on the options to offload the application without uninstalling the widget [paragraphs 33-34, 39-40]. This would provide a more flexible and convenient option for the user to configure widget options and uninstall an application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow user input for deleting widget options and uninstalling the target application, as taught by Huang. This would provide a more flexible and convenient option for the user to configure widget options and uninstall an application.
Yang-Huang do not expressly teach in a case that a second input performed by a user on a first function component of the at least one function component has been received, loading data required for the first function component from a cloud server of the target application program or starting a Quick App corresponding to the first function component. Lundgren discloses that it was well known to provide buttons or other objects within a widget that, when selected, retrieve information and data from a cloud server [column 6, lines 40-51]. This would save local storage space on the electronic device. Since Yang-Huang disclose that a widget may display one or more components, wherein the one or more components may be operated on to enter a specific interface in an application corresponding to the widget, or implement a corresponding function [Yang, column 20, lines 3-9], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, for a widget of Yang-Huang, retrieval of information on a cloud server, as taught by Lundgren. This would help save local storage space on the electronic device.
10. Claims 4-6, 10-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (U.S. Patent No. 12,346,553), in view of Samson (U.S. Patent No. 8,117,555).
10-1. Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, Yang teaches all the limitation of claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively, wherein the target application program comprises a first application program and a second application program, the target widget comprises a first widget of the first application program and a second widget of the second application program, by disclosing that a plurality of widgets in the widget set may be displayed in the display region occupied by the widget set [column 13, lines 28-33] where each widget corresponds to an application [column 12, lines 49-53].
Yang does not expressly teach the first input is used to associate a first module component in the first widget with the second application program; and the updating display information in a program screen of the target application program and loading information in the program screen of the target application program comprises: in a case of starting the second application program, loading data of the second application program and of a first module associated with the first module component; and displaying, in a target region of a program screen of the second application program, a module identifier of the first module or a link entry for the first module. Samson discloses an end-user application has an associated runtime that obtains information relating to a selection of an item, a selection of a target, and a relationship between the item and the target [column 1, lines 59-62]. When the runtime receives an indication of the selection of the item of the end-user application, and a command to have the selected item interact with a target, the runtime can initiate an operation that is based on functionality associated with the selected item and the target type [column 1, lines 63-67]. The end-user application may be a widget, which may include being an enterprise widget, and the target type may be, for example, another widget [column 1, line 67 to column 2, line 3]. The interaction may result in, for example, creation of a standalone widget, execution of the functionality, creation of a relationship, etc. [column 2, lines 3-5]. For example, an operating environment includes a widget [column 5, lines 19-26] comprising items [column 5, lines 44 60]. A runtime engine includes relationship metadata which provides a description of a relationship between a widget item and a function, an interaction result or action to perform when items of particular types are dropped on targets of particular types [column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 11]. Drag and drop interactions from a widget include dropping an item onto another widget to perform an enterprise search on a person represented by the item [column 7, lines 32-40] resulting in display of a list of individuals [column 8, lines 14-17]. This would save time in executing the functionality associated with a widget using data from another widget. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow drag and drop of an item from one widget to a target widget to perform an operation based on functionality associated with the item and the target widget. This would save time in executing the functionality associated with a widget using data from another widget.
10-2. Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Yang-Samson teach all the limitation of claims 4, 10, and 16 respectively, wherein the first input comprises an input for dragging the first module component to a component display region of the second widget; or, the first input comprises an input for dragging the first module component to a display region of a second module component in the second widget, wherein a module corresponding to the second module component has a same module type as the module corresponding to the first module component, by disclosing drag and drop interactions from a widget include dropping an item onto another widget to perform an operation [Samson, column 6, lines 11-16; column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 12].
10-3. Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, Yang teaches all the limitation of claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively, wherein the target application program comprises a third application program and a fourth application program, the target widget comprises a third widget of the third application program and a fourth widget of the fourth application program, by disclosing that a plurality of widgets in the widget set may be displayed in the display region occupied by the widget set [column 13, lines 28-33] where each widget corresponds to an application [column 12, lines 49-53].
Yang does not expressly teach the first input is used to associate all components in the third widget with the fourth application program; and the updating display information of the target widget and the updating display information in a program screen of the target application program and loading information in the program screen of the target application program comprise: generating a combined application program based on the third application program and the fourth application program; generating a combined widget based on the third widget and the fourth widget, wherein the combined widget comprises all components in the third widget and all components in the fourth widget; in a case of starting the combined application program, loading data of modules corresponding to all components in the third widget and of modules corresponding to all components in the fourth widget; and displaying, in a program screen of the combined application program, display content of modules corresponding to all components in the third widget and of modules corresponding to all components in the fourth widget. Samson discloses an end-user application has an associated runtime that obtains information relating to a selection of an item, a selection of a target, and a relationship between the item and the target [column 1, lines 59-62]. When the runtime receives an indication of the selection of the item of the end-user application, and a command to have the selected item interact with a target, the runtime can initiate an operation that is based on functionality associated with the selected item and the target type [column 1, lines 63-67]. The end-user application may be a widget, which may include being an enterprise widget, and the target type may be, for example, another widget [column 1, line 67 to column 2, line 3]. The interaction may result in, for example, creation of a standalone widget, execution of the functionality, creation of a relationship, etc. [column 2, lines 3-5]. For example, an operating environment includes a widget [column 5, lines 19-26] comprising items [column 5, lines 44-60]. A runtime engine includes relationship metadata which provides a description of a relationship between a widget item and a function, an interaction result or action to perform when items of particular types are dropped on targets of particular types [column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 11]. Drag and drop interactions from a widget include dropping one widget onto another widget to provide a docking station for widgets [column 6, lines 46-65]. This would allow a user to create a suite of functionality for a given task, thus, allowing the user to accomplish the task more efficiently. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the ability to dock widgets using drag and drop, as taught by Samson. This would allow a user to create a suite of functionality for a given task, thus, allowing the user to accomplish the task more efficiently.
Response to Arguments
11. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that Yang (U.S. Patent No. 12,346,553) fails to disclose, teach or suggest, “in response to the first input, updating display information in a program screen of the target application program and loading information in the program screen of the target application program; wherein the updating content of the display information and loading information in the program screen of the target application program are associated with the updating content of the display information of the target widget” because: (1) the present application provides that "a different target application program corresponds to a different target widget," whereas in Yang, different applications such as "WeChat" and "Alipay" all correspond to the same widget set and (2) the present application provides that the target widget belongs to the target application program, whereas in Yang, the widget set does not belong to WeChat or Alipay, but rather belongs to the "wallet" application.
Regarding (1), Examiner notes that “display information of the target widget” may be interpreted as the appearance of the widget displayed on the screen, as well as any information that would affect what information associated with the widget will be displayed on the screen, such as an arrangement order. Nothing within the claim limits the display information as originating from the target widget as opposed to merely being associated with the target widget. All the claim recites is that the display information is “of the target widget” which only denotes some type of association with the target widget. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Yang discloses that a display sequence of widgets may be set based on the order of last used widgets or use frequency [column 24, lines 39-53]. Thus, an input on a widget to use the widget may change the order of what widget will be displayed either when switching from the target icon to a widget or when scrolling through widgets. This arrangement order may be considered displaying information of the target widget since it affects when the widget will be displayed. Further, a user may provide input on the displayed widget to switch to display of another widget [column 14, lines 18-24; column 21, line 65 to column 22, line 4; column 22, lines 15-25] and input to open the application corresponding to the widget [column 20, lines 5-9], which would update the appearance of the widget such that the widget will no longer be seen by the user. Thus, Yang teaches “in response to the first input, updating displaying information of the target widget.”
Regarding (2), contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Yang discloses that each widget corresponds to an application [column 12, lines 45-53]. Although the widgets may be displayed on a program screen of an application, such as a wallet application [column 19, lines 52-56, figure 11b], user input on a widget displays a specific interface of an application corresponding to the widget, or implements a corresponding function [column 20, lines 3-9]. It is this application that is interpreted as the target application, not the application the widgets are displayed in. Since a widget is tied to an application in this way, the widget may be considered “of the target application program.”
Similar arguments have been presented for claims 7 and 13 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons. Regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant alleges that the references relating to the switching between two different display modes (from icons to widgets) (Yang); modular editing of widgets (Wu); triggering uninstallation via widgets (Huang); display control of floating layer interfaces (Lundgren); and functional cooperation between widgets (Samson), teach optimizations within a single level (such as the desktop, widgets themselves, or cloud interfaces) or a one-way process (such as trigger actions), without mentioning or implying the need to solve the technical problem of "how to improve the flexibility of the display content and loading content of application programs," nor does any disclose, teach or suggest the technical means for realizing the associated updates and displays of the three - widget display information, application screen display information, and application loading information - through input on the widget.
Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided arguments regarding how the references are applied against specific claim limitations, explaining how the claim limitations avoid the references or distinguish from them. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections are moot.
Examiner notes that there appears to be a difference between how Applicant is interpreting the claims and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Examiner suggests amending the claims to more clearly reflect Applicant’s intended meaning of the claim limitations.
Applicant states that dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 13. However, as discussed above, Yang is considered to teach claims 1, 7, and 13, and consequently, claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights