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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 7 May 2024, the preliminary amendments on 20 August 2024 and 28 April 2025, and the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 27 February 2025 and 17 October 2025.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-83 were originally filed on 5/7/24.
Claims 19-83 were cancelled on 8/20/24.
Claim 18 was amended on 8/20/24.
Claim 1, 14, 17, 18 were amended on 4/29/25.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 17, and 18 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/17/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
1) A copy of the official patent publication of foreign patent reference 5 labeled KR101319632, pub. 4/29/2008, as issued from the KPO, listed on the IDS, was not provided.
2) A copy of NPL Reference(s) 2 and 3 as listed on the IDS, was not provided.
3) An actual copy of the Office action publication (NPL #15) issued 2/13/24 for JP-2022-151732, in its native Japanese language, as issued by the JPO was not provided with the IDS.
4) An actual copy of the Final Office action publication (NPL #16) issued 8/5/2024 for JP-2022-151732, in its native Japanese language, as issued by the JPO was not provided with the IDS.
5) An actual copy of the Notice of Allowance publication (NPL #17) issued 11/5/24 for JP-2022-151732, in its native Japanese language, as issued by the JPO was not provided with the IDS.
6) An actual copy of the Patent publication (NPL #18) issued 11/20/24 for JP-2022-151732, in its native Japanese language, as issued by the JPO was not provided with the IDS.
7) An actual copy of the Office Action publication (NPL #19) issued 9/19/24 for 2022-0120246, in its native language, as issued by the EPO was not provided with the IDS.
8) An actual copy of the Notice of Allowance publication (NPL #20) issued 1/2/25 for 2022-0120246, in its native language, as issued by the EPO was not provided with the IDS.
9) An actual copy of the Notice of Allowance publication (NPL #30) issued 2/27/24 for JP-2022-151736, in its native Japanese language, as issued by the JPO was not provided with the IDS.
10) An actual copy of the Office Action publication (NPL #31) issued 9/19/24 for 2022-0120278, in its native language, as issued by the EPO was not provided with the IDS.
11) An actual copy of the Final Office Action publication (NPL #32) issued 2/18/25 for 2022-0120278, in its native language, as issued by the EPO was not provided with the IDS.
12) An actual copy of the Notice of Allowance publication (NPL #37) issued 9/30/24 for CN2020800388472, in its native Chinese language, as issued by the CNIPA was not provided with the IDS.
13) An actual copy of the Patent publication (NPL #38) issued 12/10/24 for CN2020800388472, in its native Chinese language, as issued by the CNIPA was not provided with the IDS.
14) An actual copy of the Grant Decision publication (NPL #39) issued 9/26/24 for 20712364.3, in its native language, as issued by the EPO was not provided with the IDS.
15) An actual copy of the Patent publication (NPL #40) issued 10/23/24 for 20712364.3, in its native language, as issued by the EPO was not provided with the IDS.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 10/17/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. 1) An actual copy of the Patent publication (NPL #1) issued 3/21/25 for 2022-0120246, in its native language, as issued by the EPO was not provided with the IDS. 2) An actual copy of the Notice of Allowance publication (NPL #4) issued 7/28/25 for KR-2022-0120278, in its native Korean language, as issued by the KPO was not provided with the IDS. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 5/7/24 have been accepted and entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 4/29/25 has been accepted and entered.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitations/subject matter “displaying the first widget at a first location” and “displaying the first widget at a second location” in lines 11 and 13, respectively. However, Claim 11 already introduces elements/subject matter “a first location” and “a second location” in lines 4-5. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/subject matter “a first location” and “a second location” of lines 11, 13, respectively should depend on elements/subject matter “a first location” and “a second location” in lines 4-5 or each viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. Furthermore, lines 2-5 discloses receiving input to move the first widget from a first location to second location; however, lines 10-11 indicate moving to the widget to first location. It is unclear to the Examiner how the widget moves to the same location if lines 4-5 of claim 11 indicate that the widget moves to second (new) limitation
For examining purposes, the Examiner will view portions of claim 11 as “…including: in accordance with a determination that the sixth set of user inputs includes a first amount of movement, displaying the first widget at the second location; and in accordance with a determination that the sixth set of user inputs includes a second amount of movement, displaying the first widget at the second location, wherein the first location and the second location are unoccupied by other widgets of the respective set of widgets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 18 discloses a “computer readable storage medium”; however, the exact term "computer readable storage medium" is not explicitly defined in Applicant's specification. While claim 18 recites a device with a display and touch-sensitive surface in the preamble, the claim 18 is claim a medium comprising instructions to be performed by the (outside) device, not claiming the device with the display and touch-sensitive surface having the medium to perform the instructions. Therefore, the specification does not explicitly limit the computer readable storage medium to just only be the hardware elements. Therefore, since Applicant's specification does not explicitly limit a computer readable storage medium, the broadest reasonable interpretation is used by the Examiner.
"The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2."
Thus, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage medium” encompasses nonstatutory subject matter (transmission media) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 2, 8-9, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri et al (US20190265885, 2019) in further view of Roth et al (US20120169768, 2013) . Cone, “How to Lock the Screen Rotation on an iPad” (1/15/21) is cited as evidence regarding disabling the rotation of the screen.
As per independent claim 1, Chaudhri et al discloses a method comprising:
computer system that is in communication with a display generation component (FIG 1A, 2; 0053: device with touch screen display)
receiving a request to display a first user interface; and in response to receiving the request to display the first user interface, displaying the first user interface that includes a plurality of icons (“widgets”), including: (0138, 0219, 0417-0418: rotating the device is a form of a request to display the UI in a particular orientation; FIG 5L, 5N, 5W, 5Y: 0209, 0294: discloses displaying UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) on a UI)
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface is displayed in a first orientation, displaying a first version of the first user interface that includes a first set of widgets; and (FIG 5L, 5W: 0209, 0294: discloses displaying a first set UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) on a UI in a first orientation)
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface is displayed in a second orientation that is different from the first orientation, displaying a second version of the first user interface that includes a second set of widgets, wherein the widgets included in the second set of widgets are different from the widgets included in the first set of widgets. (FIG 5N, 5Y: 0209, 0294: discloses displaying a second set of UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) on a UI in response to a change in orientation of the device; wherein the second set has more or less UI elements (icons (“widgets”))than the first set)
However, Chaudhri et al does not teach widgets as intended per Applicant’s invention. However, Roth discloses displaying widgets in a UI such that a widget may refer to an application program for single use, which may be arranged on a background image (0087) Furthermore, Roth et al discloses that widgets and icons behave similar when the orientation of the device changes such that widgets and icons are arranged and positioned similarly. For example, widget and icons may be arranged at a rotation angle of 90 degrees when the orientation changes. (0149) Thus, one of a skilled artisan in the art would have realized that Roth et al is discloses is treating the display and movement of icons and widgets interchangeable.
It would have ordinary skill in before effective of filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Chaudhri with the functionality of widgets by Roth et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of adding the capability of the substitutions of icons with widgets since it will increase the functional versatility of application icons within Chaudhri et al.
As per dependent claim 2, Claim 2 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses while displaying the first version of the first user interface that includes the first set of widgets in accordance with the determination that the first user interface is displayed in the first orientation, detecting a first set of one or more user inputs that corresponds to a request to replace the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface with a third set of widgets different from the first set of widgets; and in response to detecting the first set of one or more user inputs, updating the first version of the first user interface displayed in the first orientation to includes the third set of widgets instead of the first set of widgets. (0204; 5H-5I: in the first orientation, discloses removing an less UI elements (icons (“widgets”))from a displayed resulting in a new set of UI elements being displayed)
As per dependent claim 8, Claim 8 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses while displaying the first user interface in the first orientation, including displaying the first version of the first user interface, detecting a movement of the display generation component; and (0138, 0209, 0219, 0294, 0417: detects a rotation of the device including the screen)
in response to detecting the movement of the display generation component: in accordance with a determination that rotation criteria are not met by the movement of the display generation component, maintaining display of the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface in accordance with a first layout in the first version of the respective user interface; and in accordance with a determination that the rotation criteria are met by the movement of the display generation component, displaying the first user interface in the second orientation, including displaying the second version of the first user interface that includes the second set of widgets in accordance with a second layout in the second version of the respective user interface (0138, 0209, 0219, 0294, 0417: detects a rotation of the device resulting in the changing the screen orientation of the based on the rotation of the device. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses the use of the rotate/rotation lock icon (0208, 0290).The Examiner provides Cone, “How to Lock the Screen Rotation on an iPad” entered as extrinsic evidence, stating that selecting the rotation lock icon results in the locking screen rotation when the device is rotated. (pg 1-2) In other words, if the feature is active (by selecting the icon), the screen orientation will not change at all. Thus, based on the extrinsic evidence, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that if the rotation lock icon was selected (functionality active/rotation lock active), then the device would stay in the same orientation it was displaying when the device is rotated 90 degrees (orientation does not change). Thus, if the device was in a first orientation displaying a first set icons (“widgets”) on a UI (as shown in FIG 5L, 5W) when the device is rotated, then the device will remain in the same orientation. This is a form of a rotation criteria not being meant since the rotation lock icon was active. Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that if the rotation lock icon was not selected (functionality not active/rotation lock not active), then the device would change its current orientation it was displaying to a second orientation when the device is rotated 90 degrees as explained in 0209, 0294. As a result of the change in orientation, a second set of UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) on the UI is displayed in response (see FIG 5N, 5Y) This is a form of a rotation criteria being meant since the rotation lock icon was not active.
As per dependent claim 9, Chaudhri et al discloses displaying the first user interface in the first orientation includes displaying the first set of widgets in a first region of a display area of the display generation component; (FIG 5L, 5W: first region/position on the screen) and displaying the first user interface in the second orientation includes displaying the second set of widgets in a second region of the display area of the display generation component, the second region being different from the first region. (FIG 5N, 5Y: second region/position on the screen)
As per dependent claim 15, Claim 15 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses wherein the first set of widgets includes at least one widget that is not included in the second set of widgets.(0209, 0294; see also FIG 5W compared to 5Y: Sudoku missing from second)
As per dependent claim 16, Claim 16 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses wherein the second set of widgets includes at least one widget that is not included in the first set of widgets. (0209: the application UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) displayed in the landscape mode do not include application UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) displayed in the portrait mode)
As per independent claim 17 and 18, Claims 17 and 18 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses a display, a touch-sensitive surface, processor(s), memory storing programs, and a medium (FIG 1; 0007, 0017, 0053)
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri et in further view of Roth in further view of Anzures et al (US 20110163969)
As per dependent claim 3, Claim 3 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses removing an UI element from a displayed resulting in a new set of UI elements being displayed in a first orientation. (0204,0301-0302; 5H-5I) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose while displaying the second version of the first user interface that includes the second set of widgets in accordance with the determination that the first user interface is displayed in the second orientation, detecting a second set of one or more user inputs that corresponds to a request to replace the second set of widgets in the second version of the first user interface with a fourth set of widgets different from the second set of widgets; and in response to detecting the first set of one or more user inputs, updating the second version of the first user interface displayed in the second orientation to includes the fourth set of widgets instead of the second set of widgets. However, Anzures et al discloses, while in landscape mode, deleting a UI element within a set of UI elements that results in a new set of UI elements being display that comprises a new UI element that wasn’t displayed before. FIG 5D-E discloses UI element 2 (520) in a set of UI elements 1-4, within region 526, being selected which results in UI element 2 (520) being removed. In response, region 526 is updated with UI element 5 being added to region 526, having existing UI element 1, 3-4, thus, creating a new set of UI elements. (0175)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed feature(s) of Anzures et al since it would have provided the benefit of a faster, more efficient methods and interfaces for manipulating user interface objects, thereby increasing the effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction with such devices. Such methods and interfaces may complement or replace conventional methods for manipulating user interface objects.(0009)
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri et in further view of Roth in further view of Singal et al (US20160048305, 2016)
As per dependent claim 4, Claim 4 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses:
while displaying the first version of the first user interface that includes the first set of widgets in accordance with a determination that the first user interface is displayed in the first orientation, detecting a first request to display the first user interface in the second orientation; in response to detecting the request to display the first user interface in the second orientation, displaying the first user interface in the second orientation, including displaying the second version of the first user interface that includes the second set of widgets; (FIG 5N, 5Y: 0209, 0294: discloses displaying a second set of UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) on a UI in response to a change in orientation of the device (change to second orientation))
detecting a first request to display the first user interface in the first orientation; and in response to detecting the first request to display the first user interface in the first orientation, displaying the first user interface in the first orientation, including displaying the first version of the first user interface that includes the first set of widgets. (FIG 5L, 5W: 0209, 0294: discloses displaying a first set UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) on a UI in response to a change in orientation of the device)
However, Chaudhri et al fails to disclose while displaying the first user interface in the second orientation, detecting a third set of one or more user inputs that corresponds to a request to rearrange a respective layout of the second set of widgets in the second version of the first user interface; in response to detecting the third set of user inputs, updating the first user interface displayed in the second orientation, including updating the respective layout of the second set of widgets in the second version of the first user interface in accordance with the third set of one or more user inputs; after updating the first user interface displayed in the second orientation, detecting a first request to display the first user interface in the first orientation; and in response to detecting the first request to display the first user interface in the first orientation, displaying the first user interface in the first orientation, including displaying the first version of the first user interface that includes the first set of widgets.
However, Singal et al discloses the ability to change the orientation of the display from a portrait mode to a landscape mode. While in landscape mode, the user has the ability to reposition/rearrange icons/tiles of applications (UI elements) within the UI (0039, 0055) In other words, the user can change the layout positioning of each tile/icon. Furthermore, Singal discloses the customization arrangement by the user is stored so that when the device returns to landscape orientation, user-customized arrangement is restored. (0055-0057) Furthermore, since Singal et al discloses detecting a change of rotation of the device at any time (0082-0083; 0058), one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the device can be rotated to portrait mode after the user has performed customization of the layout of tiles/icons (UI elements) in landscape mode since its well-established in the art that the user’s preferences are dynamic as they change over time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the customization of tiles/icons for different orientation modes of Singal et al since it would have provided the benefit of adjust graphics arranged on a user interface in an intuitive manner to accommodate changes to the display device. (0019)
As per dependent claim 5, Claim 5 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and 4 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, based on the rejection of claims 1 and 4 and the rationale incorporated, Singal et al discloses after updating the first user interface displayed in the second orientation and while displaying the first user interface in the first orientation, including displaying the first version of the first user interface that includes the first set of widgets, detecting a second request to display the first user interface in the second orientation; and in response to detecting the second request to display the first user interface in the second orientation, displaying the first user interface in the second orientation, including displaying the second version of the first user interface in which the respective layout of the second set of widgets have been updated in accordance with the third set of one or more user inputs. (0055, 0057: after changing the orientation from portrait to landscape, previous stored user-customized arrangements of icons/tiles for the landscape orientation are retrieved and displayed)
As per dependent claim 6, Claim 6 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and 4-5 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Chaudhri et al discloses: while displaying the second version of the first user interface that includes the second set of widgets in accordance with a determination that the first user interface is displayed in the second orientation, detecting a second request to display the first user interface in the first orientation; in response to detecting the second request to display the first user interface in the first orientation, displaying the first user interface in the first orientation, including displaying the first version of the first user interface that includes the first set of widgets; (FIG 5L, 5W: 0209, 0294: discloses displaying a first set UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) on a UI in response to a change in orientation of the device)
while displaying the first user interface in the first orientation, detecting a fourth set of one or more user inputs that corresponds to a request to “rearrange” a respective layout of the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface; in response to detecting the fourth set of user inputs, updating the first user interface displayed in the first orientation, including updating the respective layout of the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface in accordance with the fourth set of one or more user inputs; ((0204; 5H-5I: discloses removing an UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) from a displayed resulting in a new set of UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) being displayed, a form of rearrange with new UI elements (icons (“widgets”)))
after updating the first user interface displayed in the first orientation, detecting a third request to display the first user interface in the second orientation; and in response to detecting the third request to display the first user interface in the second orientation, displaying the first user interface in the second orientation, including displaying the second version of the first user interface that includes the second set of widgets. (FIG 5N, 5Y: 0209, 0294: discloses displaying a second set of UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) on a UI in response to a change in orientation of the device; wherein the second set has more or less UI elements (icons (“widgets”)) than the first set)
However, the cited art failed to teach the request to rearrange a respective layout of the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface as intended as disclosed by Applicant’s specification. In other words, the cited art fails to teach while displaying the first user interface in the first orientation, detecting a fourth set of one or more user inputs that corresponds to a request to rearrange a respective layout of the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface; in response to detecting the fourth set of user inputs, updating the first user interface displayed in the first orientation, including updating the respective layout of the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface in accordance with the fourth set of one or more user inputs; after updating the first user interface displayed in the first orientation, detecting a third request to display the first user interface in the second orientation; and in response to detecting the third request to display the first user interface in the second orientation, displaying the first user interface in the second orientation, including displaying the second version of the first user interface that includes the second set of widgets
However, based on the rejection of Claim 4 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Singal et al discloses the ability to change the orientation of the display from a landscape mode to a portrait mode. While in portrait mode, the user has the ability to reposition/rearrange icons/tiles of applications (UI elements) within the UI (0039, 0056) In other words, the user can change the layout positioning of each tile/icon. Furthermore, Singal discloses the customization arrangement by the user is stored so that when the device returns to landscape orientation, user-customized arrangement is restored. (0055-0057) Furthermore, since Singal et al discloses detecting a change of rotation of the device at any time (0082-0083; 0058) one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the device can be rotated after the user has performed customization of the layout of tiles/icons since its well-established in the art that the user’s preferences are dynamic as they change over time.
As per dependent claim 7, Claim 7 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and 4-5 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, based on the rejection of claims 4-5 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Singal et al discloses after updating the first user interface displayed in the first orientation and while displaying the first user interface in the second orientation, including displaying the second version of the first user interface that includes the second set of widgets, detecting a third request to display the first user interface in the first orientation; and in response to detecting the third request to display the first user interface in the first orientation, displaying the first user interface in the first orientation, including displaying the first version of the first user interface in which the respective layout of the first set of widgets have been updated in accordance with the fourth set of one or more user inputs. (0055, 0057: after changing the orientation from portrait to landscape, previous stored user-customized arrangements of icons/tiles (UI elements) for the landscape orientation are retrieved and display)
Claim(s) 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri et in further view of Roth in further view of Hardwick (“iOS 16: How to Add Widgets to Your iPhone Lock Screen”, 6/29/22, 4 pages)
As per dependent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and 4-5 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose while displaying an editing user interface for editing the first user interface, detecting a fifth set of user inputs that corresponds to a request to add one or more new widgets to the first user interface displayed in a respective orientation; in response to detecting the fifth set of user inputs that corresponds to a request to add the one or more new widgets to the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation, adding the one or more new widgets to the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation, including: in accordance with a determination that the respective orientation is the first orientation, displaying the one or more new widgets adjacent to another widget in the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface. However, Hardwick discloses while displaying an editing user interface for editing the first user interface, detecting a fifth set of user inputs that corresponds to a request to add one or more new widgets to the first user interface displayed in a respective orientation; in response to detecting the fifth set of user inputs that corresponds to a request to add the one or more new widgets to the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation, adding the one or more new widgets to the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation, including: in accordance with a determination that the respective orientation is the first orientation, displaying the one or more new widgets adjacent to another widget in the first set of widgets in the first version of the first user interface. (pages 1-4: Discloses while in an edit mode, a user provides inputs to add one or more widgets to a region on the screen. In addition, page 4, discloses when adding a widget to region that already has widgets, then the newly added widget is placed next/adjacent to the existing widget.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Brookes et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of allowing for immediate, at-a-glance access to essential information which enables a more personalized, functional, and "always-on" user experience.
As per dependent claim 14, Claim 14 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and 10 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose displaying an editing user interface for a respective version of the first user interface that includes a respective set of widgets, wherein the editing user interface includes: a listing of applications, and for a respective application in the list of applications, one or more widgets associated with the respective application; detecting user selection of a third widget from the one or more widgets associated with the respective application; and in response to detecting the user selection of the third widget, adding the third widget to the respective set of widgets in the respective version of the first user interface. However, based on the rejection of Claim 10 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Brookes discloses displaying an editing user interface for a respective version of the first user interface that includes a respective set of widgets, (pg 2-4 )wherein the editing user interface includes: a listing of applications (pg 3-4: list of apps), and for a respective application in the list of applications, one or more widgets associated with the respective application (see page 3: widget associated with each app); detecting user selection of a third widget from the one or more widgets associated with the respective application; (page 3: tap/drag widget of choosing) and in response to detecting the user selection of the third widget, adding the third widget to the respective set of widgets in the respective version of the first user interface. (pg 3-4: selected widget added)
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri et in further view of Roth in further view of Hardwick in further view of Oram et al (“How to use widgets on your iPhone Home screen”, 5/12/22, 9 pages)
As per dependent claim 11, Claim 11 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and 10 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose while displaying the first user interface in a respective orientation of the first orientation and the second orientation, detecting a sixth set of user inputs that corresponds to a request to drag and drop a first widget of a respective set of widget of the first user interface from a first location to a second location in a respective version of the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation; and in response to detecting the sixth set of user inputs, moving the first widget of the respective set of widget of the first user interface to a new location in the respective version of the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation, including: in accordance with a determination that the sixth set of user inputs includes a first amount of movement, displaying the first widget at a first location; and in accordance with a determination that the sixth set of user inputs includes a second amount of movement, displaying the first widget at a second location, wherein the first location and the second location are unoccupied by other widgets of the respective set of widgets. However, based on the 112 rejection, Oram et al discloses while displaying the first user interface in a respective orientation of the first orientation and the second orientation, detecting a sixth set of user inputs that corresponds to a request to drag and drop a first widget of a respective set of widget of the first user interface from a first location to a second location in a respective version of the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation; and in response to detecting the sixth set of user inputs, moving the first widget of the respective set of widget of the first user interface to a new location in the respective version of the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation, including :in accordance with a determination that the sixth set of user inputs includes a first amount of movement, displaying the first widget at a first location; (pg 7-8: discloses receiving inputs to move a widget from a first location to second location by the user dragging and dropping the selected widget from a first location and moving it to the second location.) Furthermore, the Examiner notes that this claim comprises contingent limitations (e.g. determination limitations) which only requires one of these contingent limitations to be performed; therefore, the other contingent limitation is optional (see MPEP 2111.04)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Brookes et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of improved accessibility, allowing for a personalized, at-a-glance view of information directly alongside frequently used apps
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri et in further view of Roth in further view of Hardwick in further view of Ho et al (US 10551995, 2020)
As per dependent claim 12, Claim 12 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and 10 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose :in response to detecting the fifth set of user inputs that corresponds to a request to add the one or more new widgets to the first user interface displayed in the respective orientation, automatically selecting respective positions of the one or more new widgets in the first user interface in accordance with a language setting of the computer system. However, Ho et al discloses a computer device being programmed to display content in a language to read right to left; therefore, positions of application icons/UI elements are positioned on the right side/edge of the display (Col 9, lines 7-20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Ho et al since it would have provided the benefit that the most useful portion of the user interface is displayed correctly to the user based on their preferred language. (Col 9, lines 7-20)
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri et in further view of Roth in further view of Brookes (“How to Make the Perfect iPhone Depth Effect Lock Screen”, 10/19/2022, 8 pages) in further view of Baer et al (US20180246635, 2018)
As per dependent claim 13, Claim 13 recites similar subject matter/limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically discloses the first user interface includes a set of user interface elements displayed overlaid on a wallpaper that includes one or more wallpaper foreground elements, and the method includes: in accordance with a determination that the first user interface is displayed in the first orientation, displaying the first version of the first user interface, including displaying the one or more wallpaper foreground elements as at least partially occluding the set of user interface elements, irrespective of whether the first version of the first user interface currently includes widgets. However, Brookes discloses selecting a wallpaper for the mobile device that resulting elements of the wallpaper overlaying other UI elements such as time/clock element that is displayed on the device. Brookes shows foreground elements of the wallpaper partially occluding a UI element (clock) when in portrait mode/orientation. (pg 2-3: foreground element (cat) of the wallpaper blocking part of the clock being shown )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Brookes et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of highly personalized, artistic, and unique screens by making photos of people, pets, or scenery stand out.
Furthermore the cited art fails to specifically disclose in accordance with a determination that the respective user interface is displayed in the second orientation, displaying the second version of the first user interface, wherein displaying the second version of the first user interface includes: in accordance with a determination that the second version of the first user interface currently includes widgets, displaying the one or more wallpaper foreground elements without occluding the set of user interface elements in the second version of the first user interface; and in accordance with a determination that the second version of the first user interface does not currently includes widgets, displaying the one or more wallpaper foreground elements at least partially occluding the set of user interface elements in the second version of the first user interface. However, Baer et al discloses disclose in accordance with a determination that the respective user interface is displayed in the second orientation, displaying the second version of the first user interface, wherein displaying the second version of the first user interface includes: in accordance with a determination that the second version of the first user interface does not currently includes widgets, displaying the one or more wallpaper foreground elements at least partially occluding the set of user interface elements in the second version of the first user interface. (FIG 1; 0018, 0026: Discloses, while in landscape orientation and no widgets being displayed, a displayed wallpaper image having foreground elements (cat) partially occluding the display of the user interface (clock). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that this claim comprises contingent limitations (e.g. determination limitations) which only requires one of these contingent limitations; therefore, the other contingent limitation is optional (see MPEP 2111.04)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed features of Brookes et al since it would have provided the benefit of a sense of depth and movement can be provided by the user interface used to direct focus to different regions or elements of the graphical user interface.(0004)
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172