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 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 which are treated as computer hardware and/or hardware executed software/firmware [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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2023/0300240 to Fan, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0303385 to Hsieh et al. (hereafter Hsieh).
Fan was cited in the previous office action.
As to claim 1, Fan teaches the invention as claimed including an 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 based on priorities of application(s) and respective lock screens, paragraphs 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 to display the first interface or the second interface [triggering of preset/predetermined condition determines the next lock screen to display such as change from lock screen 1 to lock screen 2, paragraphs 13, 87, 137, 144-146 and 149];
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 priority corresponding to the identifier of the first interface and a priority corresponding to the identifier of the second interface according to the priorities of the plurality of identifiers in the preset scheduling strategy; and determining the target scheduling result according to the priority corresponding to the identifier of the first interface and the priority corresponding to the identifier of the second interface [preset sequence of lock screens are based on priorities of applications of corresponding screens such that screen of higher priority has higher sequence level and preferentially displayed on the screen of the device, paragraph 7; presence of lock screens are identifiable by a lock screen application identifiers that are ordered/sequenced in a preset manner with respect to each other based on priorities of the applications, paragraphs 176 and 179; S401-s404, Fig. 4(a); determination of current lock screen or next/ target screen to display (i.e. scheduling) are based on priority-based preset sequence as well as preset rules/conditions that rely on the priority-based preset sequence to display the next lock screen, paragraphs 137, 141-142 and 145].
Fan does not specifically teach applying interface scheduling to an in-vehicle infotainment system. However, Hsieh teaches prioritized display of operation interface such as that of Android Auto as well as Apple Carplay allowing display screen of automobile entertainment device to display content of the driver’s smartphone [abstract; paragraph 2].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have apply Fan’s Android-based [paragraphs 102,104 and 118] prioritized lock screen display [paragraphs 7, 10, 13 and 149] in Hsieh’s in-vehicle infotaiment system to extend the applicability of Fan’s method to different platforms.
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 as modified teaches the invention substantially 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].
As to claim 4, Fan as modified teaches the invention substantially 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 lock screens of the applications based on the preset sequence, paragraphs 152 and 171-172].
As to claims 5-8, Fan and Hsieh teaches an interface scheduling method as claimed in claims 1-4, therefore Fan and Hsieh 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 and Hsieh teaches an interface scheduling method as claimed in claims 1-4, therefore Fan and Hsieh 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant argued in substance that:
The determination of lock screen in fan is different than the determination of scheduling result applied to an in-vehicle infotaiment system as claimed because the determination of target lock screen (i.e. the scheduling result) in Fan relies on the triggering of the predetermined rule or preset condition rather than on the priority information of lock screen identifiers in the predetermined sequence.
Examiner respectfully traversed Applicant's remarks:
As to point (a), the examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Fan teaches the preset sequence of lock screens are based on priorities of applications of corresponding screens such that screen of higher priority has higher sequence level and preferentially displayed on the screen of the device before a preset rule/condition is triggered as well as after the preset rule/condition is triggered; the determination of current lock screen or next/target screen to display (i.e. scheduling result) are based on priority-based preset sequence in addition to preset rules/conditions that rely on the priority-based preset sequence to display the next lock screen [paragraphs 7-13 and 137, 141-142 and 145]. More specifically, Fan disclosed the triggering of preset rule 2 (i.e. after triggering condition), “when the user operates the mobile phone…meet a status data switching requirement…determines the target lock screen in descending order of sequence levels based on the preset sequence, and displays the target lock screen…through switching” [paragraph 145, lines 1-8]. Furthermore, since the presence of lock screens are identifiable by a lock screen application identifiers that are ordered/sequenced in a preset manner with respect to each other based on priorities of the applications [paragraphs 176 and 179; S401-s404, Fig. 4(a)] the priority of the lock screen of the application as identified by the identifier or the lock screen itself which identifies the application satisfy the “priority corresponding to the identifier of the” first/second interface as claimed. As to applicant’s argument pertaining to an in-vehicle infotainment system, the argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Therefore applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 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
Prosecution Insights