DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in responsive to communication(s): original application filed on 03/10/2024, said application claims a priority filing date of 06/05/2011.
Claims 2-14 are pending. Claims 2, 13 and 14 are independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 2, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Yun (U.S. Publication 2012/0084691; hereinafter “Yun”).
In regard to independent claims 2, 13 and 14, Yun teaches an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a display; and a memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying, via the display, a first notification with a first appearance, wherein the first notification corresponds to an application (Yun, figure 15A; “Note: first notification being ‘TODAY SCHEDULE’ displayed in first appearance);
detecting a first input that starts at a respective location on the display that is outside of a location of the first notification (Yun, figure 15A-15B; “Note: swipe gesture starts at the bottom of the display, outside the location of first notification”); and
in response to detecting the first input, displaying, via the display, a second notification with a second appearance different from the first appearance, wherein the second notification corresponds to the first notification (Yun, paragraph 0103, figure 15C; “Note: second notification [i.e. details of the first notification] corresponds to the first notification shows in second appearance which is different from the first appearance”).
In regard to dependent claim 3, Yun teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the first input, ceasing to display the first notification with the first appearance (Yun, figure 15A, 15B, 15C; “Note: the first notification no longer shows at 15C”).
In regard to dependent claim 4, Yun teaches wherein the first input includes a swipe gesture (Yun, figure 15A, 15B; “Note: up arrow being swipe gesture”).
In regard to dependent claim 5, Yun teaches wherein the first input includes a substantially vertical movement (Yun, figure 15A, 15B; “Note: up arrow being vertical movement”).
In regard to dependent claim 6, Yun teaches wherein: the first appearance corresponds to a first notification size; and the second appearance corresponds to a second notification size, wherein the second notification size is smaller than the first notification size. (Yun, figure 15A, 15C; “Note: size of the first notification content ‘TODAY SCHDULES’ displayed in figure 15A is bigger than the content of the second notification in figure 15C”).
In regard to dependent claim 7, Yun teaches wherein the second notification with the second appearance is closer to a top edge of the display relative to the first notification with the first appearance (Yun, figure 15A, 15C; “Note: location of second notification displayed in 15C is closer to the top edge”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yun (U.S. Publication 2012/0084691; hereinafter “Yun”) in view of Tseng et al. (WO 2009/097555; hereinafter “Tseng”).
In regard to dependent claim 11, Yun teaches an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a display; and a memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying, via the display, a first notification with a first appearance, wherein the first notification corresponds to an application (Yun, figure 15A; “Note: first notification being ‘TODAY SCHEDULE’ displayed in first appearance);
detecting a first input that starts at a respective location on the display that is outside of a location of the first notification (Yun, figure 15A-15B; “Note: swipe gesture starts at the bottom of the display, outside the location of first notification”); and
in response to detecting the first input, displaying, via the display, a second notification with a second appearance different from the first appearance, wherein the second notification corresponds to the first notification (Yun, paragraph 0103, figure 15C; “Note: second notification [i.e. details of the first notification] corresponds to the first notification shows in second appearance which is different from the first appearance”).
As shown above, Yun teaches first notification corresponds to an application (Yun, figure 15A; paragraph 0103); however Yun is silent on displaying first notification includes displaying one or more affordances corresponding to the application.
Tseng teaches a system related with displaying notification corresponding to application on a mobile device wherein said system teaches displaying first notification including displaying one or more affordances corresponding to the application (Tseng, figure 1(a) - 1(g); “Note: application icon which corresponds to application being affordance”).
Yun and Tseng are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor, system related with displaying notification corresponding to application on a mobile device.
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of Tseng, displaying application icon corresponds to the notification, to Yun. Motivation for doing so would have been to have to improve the readability of the of notification as adding application icon would readily tell user where is the notification coming from and make the system more useful and efficient.
In regard to dependent claim 8, Yun modified by Tseng as applied above having the same motivation to combine, teaches wherein: the first notification with the first appearance includes a first representation of image data; and the second notification with the second appearance includes a second representation of the image data that has a different size than the first representation of image data. (Tseng, figure 1(g), figure 2A; paragraph 0038; “Note: second notification icon displayed in 206 area have difference sizes that the first notification displayed in figure 1(g)”).
In regard to dependent claim 9, Yun modified by Tseng as applied above having the same motivation to combine, teaches wherein: the first notification with the first appearance includes a first representation of audio media; and the second notification with the second appearance includes a second representation of the audio media that is different from the first representation of audio media (Tseng, figure 2A; paragraph 0038; “Note: voice mail includes audio data”).
In regard to dependent claim 10, Yun modified by Tseng as applied above having the same motivation to combine, teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting a second input corresponding to the second notification with the second appearance; and in response to detecting the second input corresponding to the second notification with the second appearance, displaying a user interface corresponding to the second notification in the application that corresponds to the first notification (Tseng, figure 2A; paragraph 0042; “Note: upon selecting notification lines, display details of the corresponding notification”).
In regard to dependent claim 12, Yun modified by Tseng as applied above having the same motivation to combine, teaches the one or more programs further including instructions for: while the electronic device is in a locked state: detecting a third input corresponding to the one or more affordances; and in response to detecting the third input corresponding to the one or more affordances, performing a respective operation corresponding to the first notification (Tseng, paragraph 0038; “Note: display more information upon selecting affordance, i.e. notification icon”).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 2, 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1, 8 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,292,310 (“herein after “Pat310”) in view of Yun (U.S. Publication 2012/0084691; hereinafter “Yun”).
In regard to independent claims 2, 13 and 14, Pat310 teaches an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a display; and a memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying, via the display, a first notification with a first appearance, wherein the first notification corresponds to an application (Pat310, claim 1, 8 and 20); and
in response to detecting the first input, displaying, via the display, a second notification, wherein the second notification corresponds to the first notification (Pat310, claim 1, 8 and 20)
Pat310 is silent on detecting a first input that starts at a respective location on the display that is outside of a location of the first notification wherein second appearance different from the first appearance.
Yun teaches a system related with displaying notification corresponding to application on a mobile device wherein said system teaches detecting a first input that starts at a respective location on the display that is outside of a location of the first notification (Yun, figure 15A-15B; “Note: swipe gesture starts at the bottom of the display, outside the location of first notification”) wherein second appearance different from the first appearance (Yun, paragraph 0103, figure 15C; “Note: second notification [i.e. details of the first notification] corresponds to the first notification shows in second appearance which is different from the first appearance”)
Pat310 and Yun are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor, system related with displaying notification corresponding to application on a mobile device.
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of Yun, displaying second notification which is different from the first notification, to Pat310. Motivation for doing so would have been to have to improve the readability of the of notification as adding more information in second notification would make the system more useful and efficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Forstall et al., U.S. Publication 2008/0220752 - Teaches displaying notifications from plurality of apps during device is in locked state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REZA NABI whose telephone number is (571)270-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, WILLIAM BASHORE can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/Reza Nabi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174