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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to applicant' s amendment dated 1/20/2026.
2. Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are pending in the case.
3. Claims 14 and 15 are cancelled.
4. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added.
5. Claims 1, 11 and 17 are independent claims.
Applicant' s Response
6. In Applicant' s response dated 1/20/2026., applicant has amended the following:
a) Claims 1, 11 and 17
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-13 and 16-19 of the instant application recite every element of the patented claims and therefore, anticipate the patented claims.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554 in view of Matthews et al. (hereinafter “Matthews”), U.S. Published Application No. 20060218502 A1.
Claim 20 depends on claim 17:
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554 fails to expressly teach wherein the operating mode comprises a tablet mode or a desktop mode.
However, Matthews teaches wherein the operating mode comprises a tablet mode or a desktop mode. (e.g., default operating mode for a tablet device or device displaying a desktop Matthews; par. 37; tablet PCs or laptop PCs; par. 49; When a user clicks on the Start button 311 in FIG. 3, the Start menu 315 appears as a floating list on top of the currently open window 307 and desktop 303.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating system as taught by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554 to include a desktop mode as taught by Matthews to provide the benefit of easily accessing application to complete desired tasks.
Claim 21 depends on claim 1:
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554 fails to expressly teach wherein the second application indicator of the set of second application indicators on the overflow panel includes a badge.
However, Matthews wherein the second application indicator of the set of second application indicators on the overflow panel includes a badge. (e.g., displaying application symbol (i.e., badge) next to application name in overflow panel as shown in Figure 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application indicators as taught by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554 to include a badge as taught by Mathews to provide the benefit of allowing a user to easily distinguish the type of application indicator being displayed.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554 in view of Weber et al. (hereinafter “Weber”), U.S. Published Application No. 20060074929 A1.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554 fails to expressly teach wherein the badge indicates a number of notifications associated with the second application.
However, Weber teaches wherein the badge indicates a number of notifications associated with the second application. (e.g., asterisk to indicate which files have been modified or modified and not saved (i.e., a number of notifications) as shown in Figure 17; overflow panel 1730 par. 68; The file name indicated in the tab channel includes the file extension, content type (e.g., design), and a symbol or icon (e.g., asterisk) to indicate which files have been modified or modified and not saved since they were opened by the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application indicators as taught by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11880554 to include asterisks as taught by Weber to provide the benefit of improving efficiency when determining if an application has been saved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1:
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the badge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggest to amend claim 22 to depend from 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 16-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews et al. (hereinafter “Matthews”), U.S. Published Application No. 20060218502 A1, in view of Matthews et al. (hereinafter “Matthews_Taskbar”), U.S. Published Application No. 20060123353 A1 in further view of Stoakley et al. (hereinafter “Stoakley”), U.S. Published Application No. 20010035882 A1.
Claim 1:
Matthews teaches Computer-readable storage media storing computer-readable instructions thereon that, as a result of being executed by at least one hardware processor device, cause performance of operations comprising: (e.g., computer system of Figure 1 par. 38; The invention may be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer.)
determining, by the at least one hardware processor device, an available space on a task bar of a graphical user interface (GUI) associated with an operating system (OS), the available space including an indication of a first application in use and operating on the OS, the task bar comprising a first application indicator corresponding to the first application, (e.g., taskbar comprising application element 313 corresponding to application in use 307 as shown in Figure 3 par. 47; Taskbar 309 may include additional elements including application button 313)
the GUI comprising a most recently used (MRU) slot comprising an indication that the first application was most recently used; (e.g., top most spot of recently used region 319 reflects the most recently used application indicator as shown in Figure 3 par. 12; The method may include determining a most frequently used (MFU) item, determining a most recently used item (MRU), and displaying on a computer display device the MFU item and the MRU item in the list in a menu. Par. 65; MCU list 319 may include a predefined number of recently used or frequently used items, e.g., as might be included in an MRU and/or MFU list.)
determining a number of a set of second application indicators that correspond to a set of second applications that have been launched and remain either in an active or suspended state of operation on the OS, (e.g., application indicators in region 319 that is not the top most recently used are selectable in the overflow panel and are not positioned on the taskbar as shown in Figure 3 par. 62; Referring back to FIG. 3, region 318 displays most commonly used (MCU) list 319 and pin list 321. MCU list 319 may include a predefined number of recently used or frequently used items, e.g., as might be included in an MRU and/or MFU list. The specific number of items in MCU list 319 may be preset by the operating system, and/or may be modified by a user. Start menu 315 may be resized automatically based on the number of items in MCU list 319 or in any other region.)
and in response to receiving a second indication of a second user interaction with a second application indicator of the set of second application indicators on the overflow panel, causing the MRU slot to display the second application indicator. (e.g., in the instance that a non top indicator of region 319 is selected and has the most usage points, the non top application indicator will be the top most used indicator within the most recently used region 319 par. 65; Thus, according to an aspect of the present invention, an improved MCU algorithm is used to determine which items are placed on MCU list 319. The MCU algorithm determines which items to place on the MCU list based on an awarded number of usage points. The higher an item's usage points, the higher the item may be placed on MCU list 319. When two items have the same number of usage points, then the item with the later last-use or edit timestamp may receive precedence.)
PNG
media_image1.png
671
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matthews fails to expressly teach in response to determining that the number of the set of second application indicators exceeds the available space on the task bar assigning the set of second application indicators to an overflow panel that is not currently displayed in the GUI and not positioned on the task bar, where the set of second application indicators are selectable, via the overflow panel displayed in a work region of the GUI, to open a corresponding second application of the set of second applications;
in response to receiving a first indication of a first user interaction with an overflow expansion control of the task bar, causing the overflow panel, comprising the set of second application indicators, to be displayed in the GUI, where the set of second application indicators correspond to applications that are currently in use on the OS and that are not already directly selectable from the task bar;
However, Matthews_Taskbar teaches in response to determining that the number of the set of second application indicators exceeds the available space on the task bar assigning the set of second application indicators to an overflow panel that is not currently displayed in the GUI and not positioned on the task bar, where the set of second application indicators are selectable, via the overflow panel displayed in a work region of the GUI, to open a corresponding second application of the set of second applications; (e.g., determining if application indicators on the taskbar exceed the available task bar space to place on the overflow menu par. 128; FIG. 20E illustrates another example of placing simple taskbar buttons in overflow. In this example, another rich presentation taskbar button 2021 is added to the taskbar. Because there is insufficient room in the taskbar to display all taskbar buttons, another simple taskbar button is placed into overflow. par. 129; FIG. 20C also illustrates taskbar buttons being placed into overflow with the addition of more taskbar buttons to the taskbar. In this example, a new rich presentation taskbar button 2009 is added to the taskbar. As a result, another taskbar button is placed into overflow. In this case, the simple word processing application taskbar window (2004 in FIG. 20B) is placed into overflow as indicated by the double arrows 2011.)
in response to receiving a first indication of a first user interaction with an overflow expansion control of the task bar, causing the overflow panel, comprising the set of second application indicators, to be displayed in the GUI, where the set of second application indicators correspond to applications that are currently in use on the OS and that are not already directly selectable from the task bar; (e.g., assign the application indicators to a grouping panel (i.e., overflow panel) which is accessible via expansion control arrows as shown in Figure 20D and 20E par. 128; The overflow menu 2023 may be accessed by activating a cursor 2022 at a predetermined area. In the present example, the cursor 2022 is placed in a predetermined area designated by arrows 2012. A menu 2023 is then displayed indicating that a word processing application (Microsoft Word, in this example) and a file folder is in overflow.)
PNG
media_image2.png
388
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the analogous art of organizing application indicators associated with a task bar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify application indicators as taught by Matthews to be grouped together in a panel based on available space of the task bar and accessible via expansion control as taught by Matthews_Taskbar to provide the benefit of efficiently utilizing screen real estate for application indicators.
Matthews/Matthews_Taskbar fails to expressly teach task bar comprising a most recently used (MRU) slot.
However, Stoakley teaches task bar comprising a most recently used (MRU) slot. (e.g., right most position on the taskbar is designated location for most recently opened application (i.e., MRU slot of the taskbar ) par. 42; For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the most recently opened application Paint is represented by taskbar button 244. Because this is the first instance of an open Paint application, the system will place the corresponding taskbar button at the right-most position on the taskbar according to step 216 in FIG. 3.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MRU slot on the start up menu as taught by Matthews/Matthews_Taskbar to be repositioned to a location on the taskbar as taught by Stoakley to provide the benefit of efficiently allowing a user to access desired application more quickly.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining a physical orientation or operating mode of a computing device comprising the at least one hardware processor device, wherein the task bar is generated on the GUI based on the physical orientation or the operating mode; determining, based on the physical orientation or the operating mode, a coordinate space of the task bar, wherein the coordinate space comprises a position of the task bar relative to the GUI and a size of the task bar relative to the GUI; and determining a distance offset from the task bar based on the coordinate space of the task bar, wherein the overflow panel is generated on the GUI based on the distance offset, the coordinate space of the task bar, the physical orientation, or the operating mode, or a combination thereof. (e.g., displaying task bar with start menu as overflow panel based on the default physical orientation or the default operating mode as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
Claim 3 depends on claim 1:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein determining the available space comprises determining whether the set of second applications are classified the same as the first application to be indicated on the task bar wherein the first application is classified as pinned applications, the pinned applications are pinned to the task bar, and the set of second applications are classified differently from the first application and are not pinned to the task bar. (e.g., applications in quick launch area are pinned to the task bar and application button 313 is not pinned to the task bar of Figure 3 (i.e., classified differently) Matthews; par. 47; Taskbar 309 may include additional elements including application button 313 corresponding to open window 307, and quick launch area 314.)
Claim 5 depends on claim 1:
Matthews/Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein the task bar is arranged on the GUI along a first axis, and the overflow panel is arranged on the GUI along a second axis different than the first axis. (e.g., displaying task bar along horizontal axis with start menu along the vertical as overflow panel as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
Claim 6 depends on claim 5:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein the first axis is parallel to the second axis, the first axis is perpendicular to the second axis, or the first axis intersects the second axis at an angle other than 90 degrees. (e.g., displaying task bar along the horizontal axis is perpendicular to the start menu along the vertical as overflow panel as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
Claim 7 depends on claim 1:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving a third indication of a third user interaction with a panel size adjuster of the overflow panel, scroll through the overflow panel, enlarging the overflow panel, or both, to view additional second application indicators of the set of second applications. (e.g., third interaction to resize start menu (i.e., a panel size adjuster of the overflow panel to enlarge) Matthews; par. 52; Start menu 315 may also be resizable via resize control 331. A user may resize the Start menu 315 using control 331 in order to control how many search results to display (search results are further described below) by controlling window height, and by controlling the length of displayed filenames and item names displayed before truncation by controlling window width.)
Claim 10 depends on claim 1:
Matthews teaches wherein the second application indicator is simultaneously positioned in the overflow panel and the MRU slot, (e.g., top most spot of recently used region 319 reflects the most recently used application indicator within the start up menu (i.e., overflow panel) as shown in Figure 3 par. 12; The method may include determining a most frequently used (MFU) item, determining a most recently used item (MRU), and displaying on a computer display device the MFU item and the MRU item in the list in a menu. Par. 65; MCU list 319 may include a predefined number of recently used or frequently used items, e.g., as might be included in an MRU and/or MFU list.)
PNG
media_image1.png
671
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matthews/Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley teaches wherein the MRU slot is positioned collinearly with the task bar. (e.g., right most position on the taskbar is designated location for most recently opened application (i.e., MRU slot of the taskbar ) par. 42; For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the most recently opened application Paint is represented by taskbar button 244. Because this is the first instance of an open Paint application, the system will place the corresponding taskbar button at the right-most position on the taskbar according to step 216 in FIG. 3.)
Independent Claim 11:
Claim 11 is substantially encompassed in claim 1, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 1 to reject claim 11.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11:
Claim 12 is substantially encompassed in claim 2, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 2 to reject claim 12.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12:
Matthews/Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein generating the overflow panel comprises: extending the size of the task bar to generate an extended portion of the task bar; generating the set of second application indicators on the extended portion of the task bar; removing the extended portion of the task bar; and offsetting the extended portion of the task bar from the task bar by the distance offset, wherein the extended portion corresponds to the overflow panel. (e.g., extending task bar with start menu serving as the recited overflow panel as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
Claim 16 depends on claim 11:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein generating the overflow panel comprises arrange the at least one second application indicator from most recently used to least recently used, wherein the computer- implemented method further comprises: determining that another second application of the set of second applications has been accessed; and updating an order of application indicators on the overflow panel to place an indicator corresponding to the other second application toward a front of the order. (e.g., in the instance that a non top indicator of region 319 is selected and has the most usage points, the non top application indicator will be the top most used indicator within the most recently used region 319 Matthews; par. 65; Thus, according to an aspect of the present invention, an improved MCU algorithm is used to determine which items are placed on MCU list 319. The MCU algorithm determines which items to place on the MCU list based on an awarded number of usage points. The higher an item's usage points, the higher the item may be placed on MCU list 319. When two items have the same number of usage points, then the item with the later last-use or edit timestamp may receive precedence.)
Independent Claim 17:
Matthews teaches A computing system, comprising:
a display; (e.g., computer system of Figure 1 par. 38; The invention may be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer.)
at least one hardware processor device; and a storage resource storing computer-readable instructions thereon which, when executed by at least one hardware processor device, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (e.g., computer system of Figure 1 par. 38; The invention may be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer.)
determining a physical orientation or operating mode associated with the computing system; (e.g., displaying task bar with start menu as overflow panel based on the default physical orientation or the default operating mode as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
causing a task bar to be generated on a graphical user interface (GUI) presented on the display, wherein the task bar comprises a first plurality of application indicators corresponding to a first plurality of applications that have been pinned to the task bar; (e.g., applications in quick launch area are pinned to the task bar and application button 313 is not pinned to the task bar of Figure 3 (i.e., classified differently) Matthews; par. 47; Taskbar 309 may include additional elements including application button 313 corresponding to open window 307, and quick launch area 314.)
determining a coordinate space of the task bar, wherein the coordinate space comprises a position of the task bar relative to the GUI and a size of the task bar relative to the GUI; (e.g., displaying task bar based on the default position and size as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
determining a distance offset from the task bar based on the coordinate space of the task bar; and causing an overflow panel to be generated on the GUI based on the distance offset, the coordinate space of the task bar, the physical orientation, or the operating mode, or a combination thereof, (e.g., displaying task bar with start menu as overflow panel based on the default physical orientation or the default operating mode as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
Matthews fails to expressly teach
in response to receiving an interaction with an overflow expansion control of the task bar, causing an overflow panel to be generated;
and the overflow panel comprising a second plurality of application indicators that correspond to a second plurality of applications that have been launched and remain open either in an active or a suspended state and are not displayed on the task bar.
However, Matthews_Taskbar teaches in response to receiving an interaction with an overflow expansion control of the task bar, causing an overflow panel to be generated; (e.g., assign the application indicators to a grouping panel (i.e., overflow panel) which is accessible via expansion control arrows as shown in Figure 20D and 20E par. 128; The overflow menu 2023 may be accessed by activating a cursor 2022 at a predetermined area. In the present example, the cursor 2022 is placed in a predetermined area designated by arrows 2012. A menu 2023 is then displayed indicating that a word processing application (Microsoft Word, in this example) and a file folder is in overflow.)
and the overflow panel comprising a second plurality of application indicators that correspond to a second plurality of applications that have been launched and remain open either in an active or a suspended state and are not displayed on the task bar. (e.g., determining if application indicators on the taskbar exceed the available task bar space to place on the overflow menu par. 128; FIG. 20E illustrates another example of placing simple taskbar buttons in overflow. In this example, another rich presentation taskbar button 2021 is added to the taskbar. Because there is insufficient room in the taskbar to display all taskbar buttons, another simple taskbar button is placed into overflow. par. 129; FIG. 20C also illustrates taskbar buttons being placed into overflow with the addition of more taskbar buttons to the taskbar. In this example, a new rich presentation taskbar button 2009 is added to the taskbar. As a result, another taskbar button is placed into overflow. In this case, the simple word processing application taskbar window (2004 in FIG. 20B) is placed into overflow as indicated by the double arrows 2011.)
PNG
media_image2.png
388
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the analogous art of organizing application indicators associated with a task bar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify application indicators as taught by Matthews to be grouped together in a panel based on available space of the task bar and accessible via expansion control as taught by Matthews_Taskbar to provide the benefit of efficiently utilizing screen real estate for application indicators.
Matthews/Matthews_Taskbar fails to expressly teach task bar comprises a most recently used (MRU) slot including an indication that a first application of the first plurality of applications was most recently used;
However, Stoakley teaches task bar comprises a most recently used (MRU) slot including an indication that a first application of the first plurality of applications was most recently used; (e.g., right most position on the taskbar is designated location for most recently opened application (i.e., MRU slot of the taskbar ) par. 42; For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the most recently opened application Paint is represented by taskbar button 244. Because this is the first instance of an open Paint application, the system will place the corresponding taskbar button at the right-most position on the taskbar according to step 216 in FIG. 3.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MRU slot on the start up menu as taught by Matthews/Matthews_Taskbar to be repositioned to a location on the taskbar as taught by Stoakley to provide the benefit of efficiently allowing a user to access desired application more quickly.
Claim 19 depends on claim 17:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein generating the overflow panel comprises: extending the size of the task bar to generate an extended portion of the task bar; causing the second plurality of application indicators to be generated on the extended portion of the task bar; removing the extended portion of the task bar; and offsetting the extended portion of the task bar from the task bar by the distance offset, wherein the extended portion corresponds to the overflow panel. (e.g., extending task bar with start menu serving as the recited overflow panel as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
Claim 20 depends on claim 17:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar teaches wherein the operating mode comprises a tablet mode or a desktop mode. (e.g., default operating mode for a tablet device or device displaying a desktop Matthews; par. 37; tablet PCs or laptop PCs; par. 49; When a user clicks on the Start button 311 in FIG. 3, the Start menu 315 appears as a floating list on top of the currently open window 307 and desktop 303.)
Claim 21 depends on claim 1:
Matthews wherein the second application indicator of the set of second application indicators on the overflow panel includes a badge. (e.g., displaying application symbol (i.e., badge) next to application name in overflow panel as shown in Figure 3)
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley as cited above, in view of Czerwinski et al. (hereinafter “Czerwinski”), U.S. Published Application No. 20040066414 A1.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley fails to expressly teach wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving the second user interaction, generating an extended user interface element comprising a preview version of a user interface of a respective application corresponding to the second application indicator.
However, Czerwinski teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving the second user interaction, generating an extended user interface element comprising a preview version of a user interface of a respective application corresponding to the second application indicator. (e.g., displaying preview of a user interface of a respective application based on selecting an application indicator par. 41; Additionally, in one embodiment of the present invention, selecting the thumbnail or hovering over the thumbnail with a user selection device, results in the projection of a preview of the display of the windows with the group. In an illustrative embodiment of the present invention, the preview is a semi-translucent image displayed on the current desktop 102 and blended with currently displayed objects.)
In the same field of endeavor, namely, accessing a plurality of tasks in a workspace region, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application indicators as taught by Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley to include an extended interface for previewing tasks as taught by Czerwinski to provide the benefit of selecting a desired task more quickly in effort to work faster and efficiently.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17:
Matthews teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a user interaction with an application indicator of the second plurality of application indicators on the overflow panel; (e.g., selecting any of the application indicator of the start menu (i.e., overflow panel) as shown in Matthews Figure 3)
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley fails to expressly teach
determining a second distance offset from the overflow panel;
and causing an extended user interface element to be generated on the GUI, the extended user interface element comprising content of an application corresponding to the application indicator based on the user interaction and the second distance offset.
However, Czerwinski teaches determining a second distance offset from the overflow panel; and causing an extended user interface element to be generated on the GUI, the extended user interface element comprising content of an application corresponding to the application indicator based on the user interaction and the second distance offset. (e.g., displaying preview of a user interface of a respective application based on selecting an application indicator par. 41; Additionally, in one embodiment of the present invention, selecting the thumbnail or hovering over the thumbnail with a user selection device, results in the projection of a preview of the display of the windows with the group. In an illustrative embodiment of the present invention, the preview is a semi-translucent image displayed on the current desktop 102 and blended with currently displayed objects.)
In the same field of endeavor, namely, accessing a plurality of tasks in a workspace region, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application indicators as taught by Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley to include an extended interface for previewing tasks as taught by Czerwinski to provide the benefit of selecting a desired task more quickly in effort to work faster and efficiently.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley as cited above, in view of Balasubramanian; Swaminathan, U.S. Published Application No. 2008015545 A1.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley fails to expressly teach wherein the operations further comprise: determining that at least one application indicator of the set of second applications, requires a user input; and generating an emphasis notification on at least one application indicator, the emphasis notification visually distinguishing the at least one application indicator from application indicators corresponding to applications not requiring the user input.
However, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining that at least one application indicator of the set of second applications, requires a user input; and generating an emphasis notification on at least one application indicator, the emphasis notification visually distinguishing the at least one application indicator from application indicators corresponding to applications not requiring the user input. (e.g., visually distinguishing at least one application indicator requiring a user input par. 37; In FIG. 3, the second application has again changed to a new state where processing has been stopped because user input is required. To inform the user of the new status of the second application (i.e., processing stopped because input is required) an overlay icon 140B is imposed over standard icon 130B. In the example of FIG. 3, overlay icon 140B is triangle with an exclamation point.)
In the same field of endeavor, namely, accessing a plurality of tasks in a workspace region, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application indicators as taught by Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley to include status indicators as taught by Balasubramanian; to provide the benefit of improving efficiency when completing a computer task.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley fails to expressly teach wherein the set of second application indicators comprise a status indicator visually indicating that the applications are in the active or suspended state.
However, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the set of second application indicators comprise a status indicator visually indicating that the applications are in the active or suspended state. (e.g., application indicator having status indicators reflecting active applications par. 36; In FIG. 2, the second application has changed state and is now running. To inform the user of the new status of the second application an overlay icon 140A is imposed over standard icon 130B par. 37; In FIG. 3, the second application has again changed to a new state where processing has been stopped because user input is required. To inform the user of the new status of the second application (i.e., processing stopped because input is required) an overlay icon 140B is imposed over standard icon 130B. In the example of FIG. 3, overlay icon 140B is triangle with an exclamation point. Par. 38; To inform the user of the new status of the second application (i.e., processing has stopped because an error has occurred) an overlay icon 140C is imposed over standard icon 130B.)
In the same field of endeavor, namely, accessing a plurality of tasks in a workspace region, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application indicators as taught by Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley to include status indicators as taught by Balasubramanian; to provide the benefit of improving efficiency when completing a computer task.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley as cited above, in view of Weber et al. (hereinafter “Weber”), U.S. Published Application No. 20060074929 A1.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1:
Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley fails to expressly teach wherein the badge indicates a number of notifications associated with the second application.
However, Weber teaches wherein the badge indicates a number of notifications associated with the second application. (e.g., asterisk to indicate which files have been modified or modified and not saved (i.e., a number of notifications) as shown in Figure 17; overflow panel 1730 par. 68; The file name indicated in the tab channel includes the file extension, content type (e.g., design), and a symbol or icon (e.g., asterisk) to indicate which files have been modified or modified and not saved since they were opened by the user.)
In the same field of endeavor, namely, accessing a plurality of tasks in a workspace region, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application indicators as taught by Matthews/ Matthews_Taskbar/Stoakley to include asterisks as taught by Weber to provide the benefit of improving efficiency when determining if an application has been saved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the previously cited prior art failing to disclose the new limitations has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly applied “Stoakley” reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY ORR whose telephone number is (571)270-1308. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/HENRY ORR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172