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
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 3/14/2024.
This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2022/117410 filed on 9/7/2022, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202111076711.3 filed on 9/14/2021.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 7,13, and 19-20 are independent claims.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
37 C.F.R. 1.72 Title and Abstract
(a) The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible. Characters that cannot be captured and recorded in the Office’s automated information systems may not be reflected in the Office’s records in such systems or in documents created by the Office. Unless the title is supplied in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), the title of the invention should appear as a heading on the first page of the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 3, 5, and 6 recite limitations including the clause “in case that”. Each of the “in a case that” clauses indicates that the associated limitations occur only when the criteria of these clauses are met. However, the present claims never affirmatively require such events to occur. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations does not require these conditional steps to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. As such, the limitations followed by “in case that” clauses do not appear to have patentable weight since they are contingent upon a condition occurring.
Examiner suggests positively reciting the criteria occurring prior to each of the “in case that” limitations. For example, in claim 3, examiner suggests “in response to the first input, obtaining interface content corresponding to the first type module in the second application, determining the interface content corresponding to the first type module in the second application is empty, and displaying an interface corresponding to a first type module in a third application in response to determining that the interface content corresponding to the first type module in the second application is empty.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein the displaying an interface type module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation since there is no earlier recitation of “displaying an interface type module”. Examiner suggests “wherein the displaying the interface
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the displaying an interface type module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation since there is no earlier recitation of “displaying an interface type module”. Examiner suggests “the displaying the interface
Claim 20 recites “A chip, wherein the chip comprises a processor and a communication interface, the communication interface is coupled to the processor, the processor is configured to run a program or an instruction, and the program or the instruction is executed by the processor to implement the steps of the information display method according to claim 1”. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. MPEP § 2111.04. Since the “chip” does not contain “a program or instruction” the effective limitation of the claim appears to be “chip, wherein the chip comprises a processor and a communication interface, the communication interface is coupled to the processor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 19 recites “a computer program product” which is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture,” or a “composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 2, 8, 14, 20 are 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.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 recite “the first interface comprises N icons, an application corresponding to each icon has a plurality of type modules, and the N icons are arranged in a first sorting sequence; the first sorting sequence is determined based on a similarity between type modules in another application and type modules in a reference application; wherein the reference application is one of N applications corresponding to the N icons… and the another application is an application other than the reference application in the N applications”. Since nothing in the claims state “each icon” is subset of of “N icons”, the “another application” and the “reference application” do not appear to “type modules”. Examiner suggests “the first interface comprises N icons, wherein each icon of the N icons corresponds to an application of plurality of applications, wherein of the plurality of applications corresponding to each icon of the N icons has a plurality of type modules”.
Claim 20 recites “a chip, wherein the chip comprises a processor and a communication interface”. It is unclear how a “chip” can have a processor and a communication interface since the term “chip” commonly describes a small piece of an item.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Agnetta et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140333530 filed on 5/9/2014 (hereinafter Agnetta).
As for independent claim 1, Agnetta discloses device and method comprising
displaying a first interface corresponding to a first type module in a first application;
(Agnetta paragraph [0099], [0154]-[0155] discloses displaying first interface with first module, most recent content of recently received email content, in a first application, email application as shown in fig. 11A)
receiving a first input performed by a user; and displaying an interface corresponding to the first type module in a second application in response to the first input
(Agnetta paragraph [0156]-[0157] discloses receiving first input of scrolling the carousel to display a second application, mapping application, with first module of most recent content, recent geographical searches, Agnetta also discloses displaying a second application, photo-gallery application, with first module of most recent content, recent pictures taken).
As for claim 7, claim 7 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Agnetta paragraph [0116]-[0117] discloses processor and memory storing computer instructions as applications).
As for claim 13, claim 13 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Agnetta paragraph [0116]-[0117] discloses processor and non-transitory computer readable media storing computer instructions).
As for claim 19, claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Agnetta paragraph [0116]-[0117] discloses processor and non-transitory computer readable media storing computer instructions).
As for claim 20, claim 20 reflects article of manufacture for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Agnetta paragraph [0116]-[0117] discloses processor and memory storing computer instructions as applications).
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.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnetta et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140333530 filed on 5/9/2014 (hereinafter Agnetta) in view of Lee, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150346989, filed on 5/28/2015 (hereinafter Lee).
As for claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Lee discloses device and method wherein
the first interface comprises N icons, an application corresponding to each icon has a plurality of type modules, and the N icons are arranged in a first sorting sequence; the first sorting sequence is determined based on a similarity between type modules in another application and type modules in a reference application,
(Lee paragraph [0147]-[0149] discloses first interface comprising application icons 602, 604, 606 sorted as application icons 612, 614, 616 with reference application 612 and another application 614 having similar modules, alert for new message event, as shown in fig. 6)
wherein the reference application is one of N applications corresponding to the N icons and is in a preset location in the first sorting sequence, and the another application is an application other than the reference application in the N applications; and
(Lee paragraph [0147]-[0149] discloses reference application 612 is in present location of being on top of the list of icons with another applications 614 and 616)
an icon corresponding to the second application is adjacent to an icon corresponding to the first application in the first sorting sequence.
(Lee paragraph [0147]-[0149] discloses second application icon 614 is adjacent to first application icon 612 as shown in fig. 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee with Agnetta for the benefit of being able to provide a system “for conveniently displaying an object or a screen effect on a screen of an electronic device in response to a user input” (Lee [0007]) such that applications are easily accessible to a user.
As for claim 8, limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed above. Claim 8 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnetta et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140333530 filed on 5/9/2014 (hereinafter Agnetta) in view of Lee, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150346989, filed on 5/28/2015 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170364238, filed on 6/7/2017 (hereinafter Kim).
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Kim discloses device and method wherein the displaying an interface type module corresponding to the first type module in a second application in response to the first input comprises:
in response to the first input, obtaining interface content corresponding to the first type module in the second application, and displaying an interface corresponding to a first type module in a third application in a case that the interface content corresponding to the first type module in the second application is empty
(Kim paragraph [0135]-[0136], [0153]-[0154], [0173] discloses content can be displayed according to first type module, shard data 1007, in third application 1103, when second application content is empty, second application between application 1101 and 1003 doesn’t share the content which renders the content to be empty).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with Agnetta for the benefit of being able to obtain new content according to user preferred settings.
As for claim 9, limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 9 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, limitations of parent claim 14 have been discussed above. Claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnetta et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140333530 filed on 5/9/2014 (hereinafter Agnetta) in view of Zhang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240264725, effectively filed on 5/31/2021 (hereinafter Zhang).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Agnetta discloses device and method wherein
receiving a second input performed by the user; displaying at least one function control in response to the second input;
(Agnetta paragraph [0192], [0196] discloses displaying function controls, icons corresponding to attachments, in response to a second input of tilt gesture)
receiving a third input performed by the user on a target function control in the at least one function control; and in response to the third input, performing an operation corresponding to the target function control on content that is displayed on the first interface and that is corresponding to the first application.
(Agnetta paragraph [0196] discloses performing operation of target function of saving or outputting attachments in response to receiving a third input of selection of at least one of the icons as shown in fig. 30).
Agnetta does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising
receiving a second input performed by the user on an icon corresponding to the first application. However, Zhang discloses device and method wherein after the displaying a first interface corresponding to a first type module in a first application, the method further comprises:
receiving a second input performed by the user on an icon corresponding to the first application; displaying at least one function control in response to the second input;
(Zhang paragraph [0127] discloses displaying function controls, options 613, 614, and 615 for opening the music application, in response to user touch on music icon 610 as shown in figs. 6(a) and 6(b))
receiving a third input performed by the user on a target function control in the at least one function control; and in response to the third input, performing an operation corresponding to the target function control on content that is displayed on the first interface and that is corresponding to the first application.
(Zhang paragraph [0127] discloses performing operation of target function by opening the music application 610 according to selected option 614 in response to receiving a third input of user tapping option 614 as shown in figs. 6(a) and 6(b)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with Agnetta for the benefit of being able to arrange application icon on a user interface that is convenient for user selection.
As for claim 10, limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed above. Claim 10 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 16, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnetta et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140333530 filed on 5/9/2014 (hereinafter Agnetta) in view of Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170364238, filed on 6/7/2017 (hereinafter Kim).
As for claim 5, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Kim discloses device and method wherein after the displaying a first interface corresponding to a first type module in a first application, the method further comprises:
in a case that content of a target type module in a target application is updated, displaying updated content of the target type module, wherein the target application is one of N applications corresponding to N icons, and the target type module is one of a plurality of type modules in the target application.
(Kim paragraph [0149] discloses updating content when target module, function, is updated to be set to update content, “the function set to the group icon is a content update function of an application, the processor 660 may transmit a content update command to the applications included in the group icon”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with Agnetta for the benefit of being able to obtain new content according to user preferred settings.
As for claim 11, limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed above. Claim 11 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 17, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnetta in view of Kim in view of Pierce et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180225132, filed on 9/22/2017 (hereinafter Pierce).
As for claim 6, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Kim discloses device and method wherein
a plurality of type modules in an application corresponding to each icon are arranged in a second sorting sequence; and
(Kim paragraph [0135]-[0136] discloses, plurality of type modules, function list 741, corresponding to icons sorted as groups icons 711 and 713 as shown in fig. 7)
the displaying an interface type module corresponding to the first type module in a second application in response to the first input comprises: in response to the first input, obtaining interface content corresponding to the first type module in the second application, and
(Kim paragraph [0139] discloses two applications can be set with same module, function, and executes the second application according to the set module, function selected; Kim [0147]-[0152] discloses first module, function, is set to update, and only application icons 825 and 827 are updated as shown in fig. 8)
wherein the second application comprises the first type module and the second type module, the first type module is adjacent to the second type module in the second sorting sequence
(Kim paragraph [0135]-[0136] discloses, plurality of type modules, function list 741, that corresponds to group of application including first and second application and modules area adjacent to each other, the first item on the function list 741 is adjacent to second item on the function list 741).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with Agnetta for the benefit of being able to obtain new content according to user preferred settings.
Agnetta does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising displaying an interface corresponding to a second type module in the second application in a case that the interface content corresponding to the first type module in the second application is empty, and content of the interface corresponding to the second type module is not empty. However, Pierce discloses device and method comprising
displaying an interface corresponding to a second type module in the second application in a case that the interface content corresponding to the first type module in the second application is empty,
(Pierce paragraph [0052]-[0053] discloses variety of module, context 240, can be specified; Pierce paragraph [0071]-[0075] discloses displaying first application, map application, with first module, first context time, and displaying second application market application or health application based on second context, frequency of use, since content regarding time context is empty as shown in figs. 3A-3D)
content of the interface corresponding to the second type module is not empty.
(Pierce paragraph [0052]-[0053] discloses variety of module, context 240, can be specified; Pierce paragraph [0071]-[0075] discloses content corresponding to second context, frequency of use, is not empty, market application or health application both display content as shown in figs. 3C and 3D).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pierce with Agnetta and Kim for the benefit of being able to display relevant information to a user when preferred information is not available.
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 18, limitations of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANETTE J PARKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179