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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-2 0 are presented for examination. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ module used to ” recited in claims 5-8 w hich are treated as computer hardware and/or hardware executed software/firmw are [paragraph 116]. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations of a interface scheduling method comprising “ determining a scheduling result according to a preset scheduling strategy … ” which is a process that can be perform in the mind. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper , therefore, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recite the following additional elements of “ a computing device ” in performing the method is recited so generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using or on a generic computing system and performing generic computer function . Additionally , “ performing an interface scheduling…according to the scheduling result ” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “ perform ing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception , MPEP 2106.05(f) . T he “ obtaining a first request message … ” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea , the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computing device” in performing the method is recited so generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using or on a generic computing system and performing generic computer function, and as to the “ obtaining a first request message… ” , the courts have identified mere data transmission as well-understood, routine and conventional activities . See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation “ performing an interface scheduling…according to the scheduling result ” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “ performin g” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. As to claim s 2-3 , the claim s recite additional mental process es of “determining ” which are rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. As to claim 4, the claim recite s an additional mental process of “removing the first priority of the identifier…in the preset scheduling strategy to obtain a first scheduling strategy” (i.e. evaluating a change in priority) which is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. As to the limitation “ obtaining a second request message… ” is mer ely insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2. Under step 2B, as explained above, the courts have identified transmitting data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. As to claims 5-8 , these claims are rejected for the same rationale as claims 1- 4 above. Additionally, the claims recite the additional element of “ device…including ” various modules which are merely generic computer components, thus is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. As to claims 9-12 , these claims are rejected for the same reason as claim s 5-8 above. As to claims 13-16 and 17-20 , these claims are rejected for the same rationale as claims 1- 4 above. Additionally, the claims recite the additional element of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “computer” to perform the method which are merely generic computer components, thus is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. Claim s 17-20 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it failed to fall with in a statutory category because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it i s directed to a computer program product comprising instructions, namely a computer software , therefore it is directing to non-statutory subject matter. As claimed, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is at most for use with the software, such that the claim is nonetheless directed to software. The examiner suggest claiming the “ non-transitory computer - readable storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon” to overcome the rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2 0 is/are reject ed under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 20 2 3/0300240 to Fan . As to claim 1, Fan teaches the invention as claimed including a n interface scheduling method, performed by a computing device, comprising: obtaining a first request message of an application and an identifier of a second interface, wherein the first request message is used to request a display of a first interface of the application, the first request message includes an identifier of the first interface, and the second interface is a currently displayed interface [triggering condition by means of user input or detected changes in an application or request by an application including/included in various rules that triggers the switch from currently displayed lock screen 1 to displaying lock screen 2, paragraphs 13, 53, 87, 137 , 144-146 and 149 ; application identifiers or lock screen application identifier that identifies corresponding lock screen of an application, paragraphs 37, 112, 176, 182] ; determining a scheduling result according to a preset scheduling strategy, the identifier of the first interface and the identifier of the second interface, wherein the preset scheduling strategy includes priorities of a plurality of identifiers, and the plurality of identifiers include the identifier of the first interface and the identifier of the second interface [preset or predetermined sequence level associated with respective lock screens determines the lock screen to be displayed or schedule next for display over current lock screen , paragraph 7, 10, 13 and 149; application identifiers or lock screen application identifier that identifies corresponding lock screen of an application, paragraphs 37, 112, 176, 182 ] ; and performing an interface scheduling on the first interface and the second interface according to the scheduling result [triggering of preset/predetermined condition determines the next lock screen to display, paragraphs 13, 87, 137, 144-146 and 149] . As to claim 2 , Fan teaches the invention as claimed including wherein determining the scheduling result according to the preset scheduling strategy, the identifier of the first interface and the identifier of the second interface includes: determining a first priority of the identifier of the first interface in the preset scheduling strategy; determining a second priority of the identifier of the second interface in the preset scheduling strategy [preset sequence of ranked /prioritize lock screens to be display such that an exercise lock screen can be switch out to a music lock screen or a system lock screen, etc., based on various preset condition satisfying rule (s) , paragraphs 7, 31, 149 and 143-146] ; and in a case where the first priority is lower than the second priority, determining that the scheduling result is to not display the first interface and to display the second interface [ application lock screen of a same application over a request threshold within a predetermined time is prevented from using its lock screen as the target lock screen, paragraph 146, lines 9-19 ] . As to claim 3 , Fan teaches the invention as claimed including wherein determining the scheduling result according to the preset scheduling strategy, the identifier of the first interface and the identifier of the second interface includes: determining a first priority of the identifier of the first interface in the preset scheduling strategy; determining a second priority of the identifier of the second interface in the preset scheduling strategy [preset sequence of ranked/prioritize lock screens to be display such that an exercise lock screen can be switch out to a music lock screen or a system lock screen, etc., based on various preset condition satisfying rule(s), paragraphs 7, 31, 149 and 143-146] ; and in a case where the first priority is higher than the second priority, determining that the scheduling result is to display the first interface and to not display the second interface [cyclically switch and display lock screens based on preset sequence, paragraph 149] . A s to claim 4, Fan teaches the invention as claimed including further comprising: obtaining a second request message of the application, wherein the second request message is used to request that the first interface not be displayed, and the second request message includes the identifier of the first interface; and removing the first priority of the identifier of the first interface in the preset scheduling strategy to obtain a first scheduling strategy such that the first interface is not displayed and the second interface is displayed [timeout of lock screen 2 and recovers original display sequence of the loc k screens of the applications based on the preset sequence , paragraphs 152 and 171-172 ] . As to claims 5-8, Fan teaches a n interface scheduling method as claimed in claims 1-4, therefore Fan teaches the device for implementing the method. As to claims 9-12, these claims are rejected for the same reason as claims 5-8 above. As to claims 13-16, Fan teaches a n interface scheduling method as claimed in claims 1-4, therefore Fan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has stored thereon computer programs or instructions, wherein the computer programs or the instructions, when run on a computer, cause the computer to perform the method. As to claims 17 - 20 , these claims are rejected for the same reason as claims 13-16 above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3776 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9AM-6PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lewis Bullock can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3759 . 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. /QING YUAN WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199