Detailed Action
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on August 2, 2024, and January 9, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claim 4 for having the following informalities:
(1) On lines 4–5 of the claim as filed, the pluralization of “groups” in “the second plurality of tab groups representations” appears to be a typographical error;
(2) Since claim 4 recites a list of method steps, a coordinating conjunction is required between the two elements of the list of steps (i.e., the word “and” must be inserted prior to the “in response to …” step).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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 the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “computer readable storage medium” includes embodiments that are wholly directed to signals per se.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of computer readable storage medium includes signals per se because under Office precedent, the plain meaning of that phrase is to be treated as including signals per se, see Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential), and while it is possible for some applications to overcome a plain meaning reading via a different definition in the specification, in this case, the specification specifically says that a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is only “optional.” (Spec. ¶ 5).
A signal is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and therefore, there are at least some embodiments of claim 20 that include non-statutory subject matter. As such, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for including non-statutory embodiments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 –
(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.
I. Shiplacoff discloses claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–20.
Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0095240 A1 (“Shiplacoff”).
Claim 1
Shiplacoff discloses:
A method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices:
Starting with FIG. 1, Shiplacoff discloses a device 100, Shiplacoff ¶ 63, whose normal operations include the claimed method for reasons discussed below. A device that performs a method as part of its normal operation necessarily discloses that method. See MPEP § 2112.02. As shown, device 100 drives a “display screen 101,” which may be “touch-sensitive, so that a user can activate an application or function by touching.” Shiplacoff ¶¶ 63–64.
while concurrently displaying a first set of representations of open pages associated with a first tab group of a plurality of tab groups of a browser application and a plurality of tab group representations corresponding to a subset of the plurality of tab groups, the subset including at least two of the tab groups:
As shown in FIG. 13B, device 100 may cause its display screen 101 to concurrently display (1) a first group of cards 301C to 301C‴, (2) a stack 1301A representing the grouping of cards 301C to 301C‴, and (3) the edges of cards 301B and 301D to the left and right of stack 1301A. Shiplacoff ¶ 158.
Please note that while this example shows 301B and 301D as individual cards, those cards may be displayed as part of their own respective stacks when device 100 has multiple card groups open. See, e.g., Shiplacoff ¶ 25 (“a visual paradigm can be employed to indicate groups of cards” that “can be denoted by stacks”); Shiplacoff ¶ 156 (“in one embodiment, card groups are represented by stacks in card view”). Therefore, it should be understood that rejections herein are based on the alternative embodiment of FIG. 13B (not shown) where the user horizontally scrolls through multiple stacks, each stack representing a respective group of cards.
Additionally, it should also be understood that all of the cards 301 may “represent[] various web pages being viewed via a browser application.” Shiplacoff ¶ 155.
detecting a first input directed to the plurality of tab group representations;
“In one embodiment, the user indicates such movement, for example, by direct manipulation of the displayed cards 301. This can be performed on a touch screen, for example, by dragging the central card 301 to the left or to the right on the screen.” Shiplacoff ¶ 84.
in response to detecting the first input directed to the plurality of tab group representations: in accordance with a determination the first input meets first directional criteria, wherein the first directional criteria require that the first input includes movement in a first direction in order to be met, displaying a second set of representations of open pages associated with a second tab group of the plurality of tab groups.
“Accordingly, in one embodiment, when the user drags a card 301 to the left or right within display screen 100, other cards 301 move in concert with the dragged card 301. Thus, for example, if the user drags card 301B to the right, cards 301A and 301C move to the right as well. This would cause card 301C to move off the screen, and card 301A would move to the central position of display screen 100.” Shiplacoff ¶ 85.
Claim 3
Shiplacoff discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in accordance with a determination the first input meets second directional criteria, wherein the second directional criteria require that the first input includes movement in a second direction in order to be met, displaying a third set of representations of open pages associated with a third tab group of the plurality of tab groups.
“In actual operation in one embodiment, the switch from card 301B to card 301E is accomplished by moving cards 301 in a leftward direction on screen 101. For example, the user can repeatedly drag cards 301 in a leftward direction to cause cards 301C, 301D, and 301E to successively occupy the central position.” Shiplacoff ¶ 93.
Claim 4
Shiplacoff discloses method of claim 1, further comprising:
while displaying the second set of representations of open pages, displaying a second plurality of tab group representations corresponding to a second subset of the plurality of tab groups, and detecting a second input directed to the second plurality of tab groups representations;
in response to detecting the second input directed to the second plurality of tab group representations: in accordance with a determination the second input meets the first directional criteria, displaying a fourth set of representations of open pages associated with a fourth tab group of the plurality of tab groups.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the second plurality of tab group representations corresponding to a second subset of the plurality of tab groups, the “second plurality” and “second subset” may overlap with the first plurality and first set. This interpretation is reasonable because the Applicant’s disclosure explicitly provides an example where the first plurality of tab group representations is “tab group icons 5040, 5042, and 5044 in Figure 5B” while the second plurality is “tab group icons 5042, 5044, and 5045 . . . in Figure 5E.” (Spec. ¶¶ 158–159). Notably, both pluralities of representations share tab group icons 5042 and 5044 as members.
Shiplacoff likewise discloses that, after dragging the sequence of cards (or card groups) in a first direction, the user can once again drag the sequence of cards to advance the sequence by yet another card. See Shiplacoff ¶ 93 (“the user can repeatedly drag cards 301 in a leftward direction to cause cards 301C, 301D, and 301E to successively occupy the central position.”). Again, recall from the rejection of claim 1 that embodiments of the disclosure allow for all (or at least several) of the elements of the sequence to be their own respective group of cards. See, e.g., Shiplacoff ¶ 25 (“a visual paradigm can be employed to indicate groups of cards” that “can be denoted by stacks”) and Shiplacoff ¶ 156.
Claim 5
Shiplacoff discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of tab group representations are displayed in a tab group bar of the browser application.
In the card mode, “cards 301 are arranged linearly.” Shiplacoff ¶ 108.
Claim 6
Shiplacoff discloses the method of claim 1, wherein,
the first tab group is associated with a first tab group representation of the plurality of tab group representations and the second tab group is associated with a second tab group representation of the plurality of tab group representations;
The above limitation merely clarifies what is already inherent to claim 1, i.e., that at least one of the tab group representations on screen is indeed the tab group representation for the tab group whose pages are currently being displayed. Shiplacoff likewise discloses that, for each card group brought into focus, its corresponding stack is also displayed at that time. See Shiplacoff ¶¶ 157–158.
prior detecting the first input, the first tab group representation is displayed at a first position, corresponding to an active tab group, and the second tab group representation is displayed at a second position adjacent to the first position; and the method includes:
“FIG. 13B depicts display screen 101 in card mode, with the same eight cards 301A, 301B, 301C, 301C′, 301C″, 301C‴, 301D, and 301E being open, and card 301C still having focus. Here, grouped cards 301C, 301C′, 301C″, and 301C‴ are depicted in a stack 1301A.” Shiplacoff ¶ 158. Meanwhile, a representation for card 301D (which would be a group of cards, in some embodiments) is shown on the right edge of display 101. See Shiplacoff FIG. 13B; see also Shiplacoff ¶¶ 78–79 (explaining that the other cards that currently do not have focus are displayed partially visible on the edges of the screen).
in response to detecting the first input directed to the plurality of tab group representations: displaying the second tab group representation at the first position and ceasing to display the first tab group representation at the first position.
“In actual operation in one embodiment, the switch from card 301B to card 301E is accomplished by moving cards 301 in a leftward direction on screen 101. For example, the user can repeatedly drag cards 301 in a leftward direction to cause cards 301C, 301D, and 301E to successively occupy the central position.” Shiplacoff ¶ 93.
Claim 7
Shiplacoff discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of tab group representations are displayed in a tab group browsing mode.
“FIG. 13B depicts display screen 101 in card mode,” rather than the “full-screen mode.” Shiplacoff ¶ 158; see also Shiplacoff ¶¶ 75–79 (explaining the difference between “card mode” and “full-screen mode”).
Claim 9
Shiplacoff discloses the method of claim 1, wherein,
the first set of representations of open pages and the plurality of tab group representations are displayed in a user interface for switching tab groups; and
“FIG. 13B depicts display screen 101 in card mode,” rather than the “full-screen mode.” Shiplacoff ¶ 158; see also Shiplacoff ¶¶ 75–79 (explaining the difference between “card mode” and “full-screen mode”).
the user interface for switching tab groups is displayed in response to a third input directed to a control displayed in a user interface for switching tabs.
“[T]he user can switch among modes by initiating a mode change command, for example by touching a button on screen 101, or by pressing button 103 or some other physical button on device 100, or by selecting a mode change command from a menu.” Shiplacoff ¶ 130.
Claim 12
Shiplacoff discloses the method of claim 1, including:
while displaying the plurality of tab group representations in a tab group bar, detecting a fifth input; and
“[W]hen in card mode,” the device 100 may detect the user “tapping the area below the row of cards.” Shiplacoff ¶ 126.
in response to detecting the fifth input, displaying a user interface for editing the tab groups.
“[T]apping the area below the row of cards causes a switch to shuffle mode.” Shiplacoff ¶ 126. “In one embodiment, when device 100 is in shuffle mode, cards 301 are arranged linearly as they are in card mode. The user can rearrange cards 301 as described above for card mode, and substantially all of the behaviors described above with respect to card mode also apply to shuffle mode. Thus, when the user drags a card 301 to the left or right within display screen 100, other cards 301 move in concert with the dragged card 301. Shuffle mode provides a way to rearrange cards while being able to view more cards 301 simultaneously.” Shiplacoff ¶ 108.
Claims 13 and 15–19
Claims 13 and 15–19 recite a general purpose computer that is programmed to perform all of the same steps as the method of corresponding claims 1 and 3–7 as part of its normal operation. Shiplacoff discloses each and every element of claims 1 and 3–7 for the reasons given above, and further discloses the claimed general purpose hardware for performing those steps. See Shiplacoff ¶¶ 63–65 and 179. Therefore, claims 13 and 15–19 are rejected over the findings from the above rejections, together with the findings of the hardware disclosed by Shiplacoff.
Claim 20
The computer readable storage medium of claim 20 is a much broader and fully-encompassing version of the memory recited in claim 13. Since Shiplacoff discloses the memory recited in claim 13, and all of the programs stored therein, Shiplacoff also discloses the computer readable medium of claim 20 for the same reasons.
II. Kim discloses at least claims 1, 13, and 20.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0060111 A1 (“Kim”).
Claim 1
Kim discloses:
A method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices:
“FIG. 2 is a flowchart of an item display method,” Kim ¶ 88, performed by an “item display apparatus 100,” Kim ¶ 89, which “includes an input unit 110 [and] a display unit 120.” Kim ¶ 56.
while concurrently displaying a first set of representations of open pages associated with a first tab group of a plurality of tab groups of a browser application and a plurality of tab group representations corresponding to a subset of the plurality of tab groups, the subset including at least two of the tab groups:
“Referring now to FIG. 2, at (210) the item display apparatus 100 displays a tab associated with a first category, a tab associated with a second category and items of the first category on the display unit 120 (shown in FIG. 1).” Kim ¶ 89. Please note, Kim uses different terminology to refer to some of the claimed elements. In particular, the claimed tab group representations correspond to Kim’s “tabs,” the tab groups correspond to Kim’s “categories,” and the representations of open pages correspond to Kim’s “items,” each of which are representations of respective pieces of “content.”
Claim 1
Kim1
open page(s)
content (e.g., content 650)
representation(s) of open page(s)
items (e.g., items 610)
tab group
category (e.g., “Frequent” category)
tab group representation
tab (e.g., tab 601)
In any case, FIGS. 6 and 7 (among others) show that step 220 (discussed next) is performed while performing step 210 of displaying the above elements.
detecting a first input directed to the plurality of tab group representations;
“At (220), the item display apparatus 100 receives a user gesture through the display unit 120.” Kim ¶ 89.
in response to detecting the first input directed to the plurality of tab group representations: in accordance with a determination the first input meets first directional criteria, wherein the first directional criteria require that the first input includes movement in a first direction in order to be met, displaying a second set of representations of open pages associated with a second tab group of the plurality of tab groups.
“[W]hen the user gesture is a scroll gesture, then at (260) the item display apparatus 100 may display both items of the first category and items of the second category. For example, the item display apparatus 100 may scroll through both items of the first category and items of the second category in the scrolling direction.” Kim ¶ 91. Note that while some of the figures illustrate the scroll gesture being performed within the category portion, Kim further discloses that the scroll gesture may be applied to the tabs themselves, in the same direction in which they are arranged. See Kim ¶ 72.
Claims 13 and 20
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1, and therefore rejected over the same findings, taken in conjunction with Kim’s further disclosure of a general-purpose computer having a processor and memory. See Kim ¶ 56.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
I. Shiplacoff and Weber teach claims 2, 10, and 14.
Claims 2, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiplacoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0152010 A1 (“Weber”).
Claim 2
Shiplacoff teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “private” browsing mode.
Weber, however, teaches a method where, much like Shiplacoff and claim 1, a smartphone 110 concurrently displays representations of two different tab groups—stacks 432 and 434 shown in FIG. 4C—but further teaches:
a private browsing mode is active in the second tab group.
“In step 305, the second tab 436 (e.g., for the private browsing session) is provided for display in the web browser 222 by the stacking interface in a second stack 432 of other private browsing tabs.” Weber ¶ 29 (referring to FIG. 4C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Shiplacoff’s groupings of cards (which represent browser pages in some embodiments) according to Weber’s technique of organizing tabs into stacks according to a common application defined constraint, including “the constraint of being for private browsing.” Weber ¶ 29. One would have been motivated to improve Shiplacoff’s card groups in the manner suggested by Weber because Shiplacoff’s mere stacking of the cards, absent adherence to Weber’s constraints, “does not . . . assist the user with organizing the tabs.” Shiplacoff ¶ 4.
Claim 10
Shiplacoff teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose multiple “browsing profiles,” let alone stacking the tabs according to each profile’s ownership of the tabs.
Weber, however, teaches a method wherein
the plurality of tab groups are a first plurality of tab groups associated with a first browsing profile of a plurality of browsing profiles and a second plurality of tab groups are associated with a second browsing profile different from the first browsing profile.
Much like Shiplacoff and claim 1, Weber teaches a smartphone 110 that concurrently displays representations of two different tab groups, e.g., stacks 432 and 434 shown in FIG. 4C. Weber ¶ 29. “Both the first stack of windows and the second stack of windows can each include other windows, and each of the windows in either the first stack or the second stack can share a common defined constraint with other windows in the same stack, such as . . . a user account common to each of the windows.” Weber ¶ 25. For a web browser, the windows are tabs, and the constraint involves enforcing that the pages of each stack correspond to “a same user profile” for that stack. Weber ¶ 25.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Shiplacoff’s groupings of cards (which represent browser pages in some embodiments) according to Weber’s technique of organizing tabs into stacks according to a common application defined constraint, including a constraint for “web pages logged in using a same user profile.” Weber ¶ 25. One would have been motivated to improve Shiplacoff’s card groups in the manner suggested by Weber because Shiplacoff’s mere stacking of the cards, absent adherence to Weber’s constraints, “does not . . . assist the user with organizing the tabs.” Shiplacoff ¶ 4.
Claim 14
The additional elements of claim 14 are the same as those recited in claim 2, and are therefore rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above.
II. Shiplacoff and Trainor teach claim 8.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiplacoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0058787 A1 (“Trainor”).
Claim 8
Shiplacoff teaches the method of claim 1, including:
prior to concurrently displaying the first set of representations of open pages and the plurality of tab group representations, concurrently displaying a first open page of a first set of open pages
FIGS. 2 and 13A each show the user interface in a “full-screen mode,” which is displayed prior to entering the “card mode” shown in FIGS. 3 and 13B. See Shiplacoff ¶¶ 75–79 and 157–158. The “full-screen mode . . . refer[s] to any arrangement wherein the primary focus of the screen 101 is a single activity.” Shiplacoff ¶ 75. More specifically, in the case of a card group, “card groups are represented by stacks in card view, but the stacks are separated in full-screen view so that the user can see each constituent card 301 in its entirety.” Shiplacoff ¶ 156.
and a first tab identifier associated with the first open page,
“As shown in FIG. 2, even in full-screen mode, certain portions of display screen 101 may be reserved for a title bar.” Shiplacoff ¶ 75.
wherein the first open page corresponds to a first tab of the first tab group of the plurality of tab groups and the first tab identifier corresponds to the first tab;
“[C]ards 301 representing various web pages being viewed via a browser application can be grouped.” Shiplacoff ¶ 155.
detecting a second input directed to the first tab
“In one embodiment, the user can move cards 301 left and right by dragging a finger along gesture area 102. In one embodiment, such a gesture can be performed even in full-screen mode, causing cards 301 to move left and right in the same manner as described above for card mode.” Shiplacoff ¶ 79.
and a second tab identifier associated with the second open page,
Regardless of which activity is currently displayed in the full-screen mode, “certain portions of display screen 101 may be reserved for a title bar.” Shiplacoff ¶ 75. As shown in FIG. 5, the title bar for this second activity has a different title than the one shown in FIG. 2, for the first activity.
wherein the second open page corresponds to a second tab of the first tab group and the second tab identifier corresponds to the second tab.
“In one embodiment, cards 301 can be visually grouped with one another. Thus, cards 301 having some relationship to one another (such as cards 301 associated with a particular application or activity) can be displayed in a manner that indicates and/or reinforces the relationship. For example, cards 301 representing various web pages being viewed via a browser application can be grouped.” Shiplacoff ¶ 155.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the only difference between Shiplacoff and the claimed invention was the second input being directed to the first tab identifier, rather than the whole tab writ large. However, this difference was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Trainor teaches:
concurrently displaying a first open page of a first set of open pages
“FIG. 2A shows an application interface 205 in the form of a web browser displayed on a touch screen. The application interface 205 may correspond to an application in which multiple tabs are open, however only the content of one tab 210 is shown in the application interface 205.” Trainor ¶ 23.
and a first tab identifier associated with the first open page,
In addition, still referring to FIG. 2A, “[a] toolbar 215 is displayed in the application interface 205,” which, among other things, “displays a uniform resource locator (URL) field.” Trainor ¶ 24.
wherein the first open page corresponds to a first tab of the first tab group of the plurality of tab groups and the first tab identifier corresponds to the first tab;
As mentioned above, “multiple tabs are open, however only the content of one tab 210 is shown in the application interface 205.” Trainor ¶ 23.
detecting a second input directed to the first tab identifier associated with the open page;
“As seen in FIG. 2A, a user may initiate a swipe gesture 230 by making contact with the touch screen with a finger 225 (or stylus) and dragging the finger 225 on the touch screen.” Trainor ¶ 26.
in response to detecting the second input directed to the first tab identifier associated with the open page: in accordance with a determination the second input meets the first directional criteria, wherein the first directional criteria require that the first input includes movement in the first direction in order to be met, concurrently displaying a second open page of the first set of open pages and a second tab identifier associated with the second open page
“As is seen in FIG. 2C, the switching of tabs from tab 210 to tab 250 is complete and the content of tab 250, the new active tab, is displayed in the application interface 205. The application interface 205 is also shown with the address toolbar 215 showing the URL (‘www.website1.com’) for the new active tab 250.” Trainor ¶ 30.
III. Shiplacoff and Vaid teach claim 11.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiplacoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0005280 A1 (“Vaid”).
Claim 11
Shiplacoff teaches the method of claim 1, wherein,
the first set of representations of open pages or the second set of representations of open pages are displayed over a first background
As shown throughout the figures, in the card mode, activities (i.e., browser pages, or groups thereof) are displayed at a size that is smaller than full screen (see Shiplacoff ¶¶ 16, 77–78, and Clm. 1), allowing the device to display the sequence of cards over a general background. See Shiplacoff FIGS. 3, 4, 6B–6E, 13A, and 13B.
Shiplacoff does not appear to explicitly disclose a plurality of browsing profiles, let alone switching to a second browsing profile with its own plurality of groups, with open pages displayed “over a second background different from the first background.”
Vaid, however, teaches a method for providing a web browser with a plurality of “workspaces” (i.e., the claimed browsing profiles), each of which may have its own number of tab groups, wherein:
the plurality of tab groups is a first plurality of tab groups associated with a first browsing profile of a plurality of browsing profiles;
“[B]rowser 104 implements one or more collaborative browser workspaces,” each of which maintain a separate collection of resources, including browser tabs. Vaid ¶ 32. Moreover, within each respective browser workspace, one or more “tab groups” may be formed in order to organize the tabs of a workspace into logical groups. Vaid ¶¶ 71–72. An example is shown in FIG. 5B where one tab group 566 has been formed, although Vaid makes clear that workspaces are not limited to having only one tab group. See Vaid ¶ 72.
the first set of representations of open pages or the second set of representations of open pages are displayed over a first background associated with the first browsing profile;
Each of the workspaces, including this first workspace, “has at least one feature comprising a workspace identification indicator 414 (e.g., a color, graphic, text, or other feature) that is specifically associated with a collaborative browser workspace to assist a user in quickly identifying which workspace shell corresponds to which collaborative browser workspace,” and thus, in each workspace, the “browsing tabs, workspace shell title bar, or other items may be colored and/or labeled so that a user can differentiate one from the other.” Vaid ¶ 66.
and the method includes: detecting a fourth input requesting to switch from the first browsing profile to a second browsing profile;
“Using the workspace selection button 522, the user may select which collaborative browser workspace is rendered in that workspace shell. For example, activation of the workspace selection button 522 may cause the UI 500 to display a listing of available collaborative browser workspaces (e.g., from the user workspace preference data 240),” and then the UI 500 may subsequently detect a “selection of a collaborative browser workspace from the listing.” Vaid ¶ 68.
in response to detecting the fourth input requesting to switch from the first browsing profile to the second browsing profile: displaying a different set of representations of open pages over a second background different from the first background, wherein the different set of representations of open pages is associated with a tab group of a different plurality of tab groups associated with the second browsing profile.
“Based on the selection of a collaborative browser workspace from the listing, the workspace manager 220 will obtain the network address for the corresponding workspace management document 108 (e.g., from the user workspace preference data 240) and render the collaborative browser workspace within the UI 500 as described by this disclosure.” Vaid ¶ 68. Much like the aforementioned workspace, this newly selected workspace maintains its own respective set of tabs, tab groups, and color (or other distinguishing indicia) displayed on the workspace title bar to help the user distinguish this workspace from the others. See Vaid ¶ 66.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to organize Shiplacoff’s groups of activity cards into distinct, color-coded workspaces, as taught by Vaid. One would have been motivated to combine Vaid with Shiplacoff because, without such organization, “browsers can [] be cluttered with links, folders, and groups related to other projects or websites used for personal business.” Vaid ¶ 19.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The following references likely anticipate at least the independent claims:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0174202 A1 (“Kohyama”). Referring to FIG. 2, the tab group representations include the ML and MR arrows, the tabs themselves include T5–T8, and the other tab groups are shown in the subsequent figures.
The following references are relevant to the Applicant’s private browsing and/or multiple profile features:
US 20210181908 A1 — Jitkoff; John Nicholas et al. — TAB VISIBILITY
US 20130145448 A1 — NEWELL; Craig — LOCK SCREENS TO ACCESS WORK ENVIRONMENTS ON A PERSONAL MOBILE DEVICE
US 20120198524 A1 — Celebisoy; Berk C. — RESUMABLE PRIVATE BROWSING SESSION
US 20140317488 A1 — Lutz; David — SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANNOTATING AND MANIPULATING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. Note that this reference further teaches the various color-coding of backgrounds to distinguish different profiles.
US 20230368296 A1 — Hara; Kentaro — MANAGING INTER-LEDGER BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS
US 20180018795 A1 — Li; Bin — METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING TAB IN GRAPHICAL INTERFACE
The following references are relevant to one or more descriptions of the tabs recited in the claims in general (several of which include discussions of tab groups) 6:
US 20120233566 A1 – Mandic; Mirko et al. – TASK-BASED ADDRESS BAR AND TABS SCALING
US 20110057957 A1 – Kasahara; Shunichi – INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
US 20150169071 A1 – JITKOFF; John Nicholas – EDGE SWIPING GESTURE FOR HOME NAVIGATION
US 20130145291 A1 – Weber; Arnaud Claude et al. – GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE WINDOW SPACING MECHANISMS
US 20120066628 A1 – Ens; Michael J. et al. – DRAG-ABLE TABS
US 20090319949 A1 – Dowdy; Thomas et al. – Media Manager with Integrated Browers
US 20170357437 A1 – Peterson; Adele C. et al. – Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Manipulating Windows in Split Screen Mode
US 20070186175 A1 – Hudson; Thomas R. JR. – User interface for a tabbed pane
US 20040261035 A1 – Emerson, William C. et al. – Automatic tab displaying and maximum tab storing user interface and a reprographic machine having same
US 20080141161 A1 – Raven; Mary E. et al. – DYNAMIC TAB CONTROL RESIZING IN A USER INTERFACE
US 20160103573 A1 – Jones; Timothy Charles – SCALABLE AND TABBED USER INTERFACE
US 7574669 B1 – Braun; Owen C. et al. – User interface control for navigating, selecting, and organizing document pages
US 5305435 A – Bronson; Barry – Computer windows management system and method for simulating off-screen document storage and retrieval
US 9367211 B1 – Turner; Andrew Russell – Interface tab generation
US 8881032 B1 – Weber; Arnaud Claude et al. – Grouped tab document interface
US 8856675 B1 – Agarawala; Anand et al. – User interface with hierarchical window display
US 7426697 B2 – Holecek; Ales et al. – Multi-application tabbing system
The following references discuss both private browsing, profiled browsing, and tab groups 67:
US 20080005686 A1 – Singh; Mona – Methods, systems, and computer program products for grouping tabbed portion of a display object based on content relationships and user interaction levels
US 20150346929 A1 – Karunamuni; Chanaka G. et al. – Safari Tab and Private Browsing UI Enhancement
The following references are relevant to the various gesture-based features of tabbed browsing:
US 20150193099 A1 — MURPHY; Glen — TAB SCRUBBING USING NAVIGATION GESTURES
US 20150058787 A1 — TRAINOR; David Andrew et al. — SWIPE TOOLBAR TO SWITCH TABS
US 20130176298 A1 — LEE; Kunwoo et al. — MOBILE TERMINAL AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME
US 20140068475 A1 — Li; Yang et al. — DYNAMIC USER INTERFACE FOR NAVIGATING AMONG GUI ELEMENTS
US 9547525 B1 — Trainor; David Andrew et al. — Drag toolbar to enter tab switching interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 Examples refer to Fig. 6.
Prosecution Insights