DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11 and 13-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims lack a conjunction between elements and/or comprise typographical error(s).
For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
as per claim 2, “…wherein, the first object is associated with a first session; and the first information item is a session item corresponding to the first session”;
as per claim 7, “… after canceling the fixed and preferential display of the
first information item related to the first object in the information flow list of the current user, determining a sorting position of the first information item in the information flow list based on an update time of the first information item and displaying the first information item; and
the update time comprises: a time when the fixed and preferential display of the first information item is cancelled and/or a time when a new message is generated in the first session associated with the first object”;
as per claim 11, “…determining a target group to which the first session belongs, the target group comprising at least one group; and fixedly and preferentially displaying the first information item in a respective information flow list corresponding to each target group, or fixedly and preferentially displaying the first infom1ation item in an information flow list corresponding to a designated target group in the target group”;
as per claim 13, “… wherein, the first object comprises a schedule; and the first predetermined event comprises: a predetermined reminder time of the schedule being up”; and
as per claim 15, “…the first object comprises a conference; and the first predetermined event comprises one or more of the following: a start of the conference, or a reminder before
the start of the conference”.
Claims not specifically addressed are objected to based on their dependency to one of the above-mentioned claims.
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 4, 8, 9, 14, 16 and 17, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 4, with respect to the limitation “information of the first predetermined event” (i.e., “wherein information of the first predetermined event is displayed at the top of the session interface of the first session”), it is not clear if the limitation is distinct from the “information related to the first predetermined event in the first information item” in claim 1. For purposes of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…wherein the information related to [[of]] the first predetermined event is displayed at the top of the session interface of the first session.”
As per claim 8, first, “the number of the first objects” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. In addition, it is not clear if the “first predetermined event” (i.e., “a first predetermined event related to a target object” and “the first predetermined event related to other first objects”), is the same or different from the first predetermined event in claim 1 (i.e., “in response to a first predetermined event related to a first object”). Also, or alternatively, “the first predetermined event related to other first objects” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Similarly, it is not clear if the “information related to a first predetermined event related to a target object” and the “information related to the first predetermined event related to other first objects”, is separate and distinct from the “information related to the first predetermined event in the first information item” in claim 1. If intended to refer to different predetermined events and information, the Examiner recommends adding clarifying details, e.g., “second information related to a second [[first]] predetermined event”, etc.
As per claim 9, it is not clear what “at least one of the following” is referring to in the claim. In addition, and similar to claim 8, it is not clear, if “a first predetermined event related to another first object” and “a first predetermined event related to each of the first objects” is distinct from the first predetermined event introduced in claim 1. Similarly, it is not clear if the “information related to a first predetermined event related to a target object” and the “information related to the first predetermined event related to other first objects”, is separate and distinct from the “information related to the first predetermined event in the first information item” in claim 1.
For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting claim 9 to read:
“…wherein the method comprises:
preferentially displaying, in the first information item, information related to the target object, and/or aggregately displaying information related to other first objects;
after the target object is completed, determining a next target object with the earliest start time from other uncompleted first objects, and displaying, in the first information item, information related to the next target object with the earliest start time;
in response to a predetermined operation of the first information item, switching the information related to the target object to information related to another first object;
in response to a trigger operation for the first information item, displaying a detail interface corresponding to the first information item, wherein [[the]] information related to each of the other first objects is displayed in the detail interface;
in accordance with a determination that at least one of the other first objects is not completed, refraining from automatically cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item in the information flow list of the current user, and in accordance with a determination that the target object and all of the other first objects are completed, automatically cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item in the information flow list of the current user; and
wherein in accordance with a determination that at least one of the target object and/or the other first objects is ignored, rejected, or ended, the at least one of the target object and/or the other first objects is completed.”
As per claim 14, it is not clear what “at least one of the following” is referring to in the claim. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…wherein at least one of the following: the current user is a participant of the schedule, or the current user is a user among the participants of the schedule who does not reject the schedule, or the current user is a user among the participants of the schedule who accepts the schedule; or state information of the schedule is displayed in the first information item, and the state information of the schedule is updated as a state of the schedule is updated; and
wherein the method further comprises: in response to the current user's rejection of the schedule or a start time of the schedule being up, cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item of the schedule.”
As per claim 16, it is not clear what “at least one of the following” is referring to in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear whether “information related to the first predetermined event” (i.e., “displaying information related to the first predetermined event in the session item corresponding to the conference group”) is separate and distinct from the previous “information related to the first predetermined event” in claim 1. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“… the method of claim 15, wherein at least one of the following: the current user is a participant of the conference, or the current user is a user who does not reject a schedule of the conference,[[;]] wherein the method further comprises:
after fixedly and preferentially displaying the first information item related to the first object in the information flow list of the current user, in accordance with a determination that a conference group of the conference is created, fixedly and preferentially displaying a session item corresponding to the conference group in the information flow list, displaying the information related to the first predetermined event in the session item corresponding to the conference group, and cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item;
in response to an operation of ignoring the conference, cancelling the fixed and preferential display of a first information item related to the conference, or in response to an end of the conference, cancelling the fixed and preferential display of
the first information item related to the conference; and
in response to a completion operation performed on the first information item, adding the first information item to a completed group”.
As per claim 17, it is not clear what “at least one of the following” is referring to in the claim. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“… wherein at least one of the following:
the first information item has a first control for joining the conference;
the first information item has a first control for joining the conference and different types of the conference corresponding to different styles of the first control;
the first information item has a second control for ignoring the conference; or
state information of the conference is displayed in the first information item, and the state information of the conference is updated as a state of the conference is updated.”
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 1, under Step 2A Prong One, of the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 07, 2019) (“2019 PEG”), Applicant’s claimed invention falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas as the claimed invention could broadly be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’; and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible)).
Furthermore, since the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim can be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper to display information related to an event fixedly and preferentially in a list (i.e., “…fixedly and preferentially displaying a first information item related to the first object in an information flow list of a current user; and displaying information related to the first predetermined event in the first information item, wherein the information flow list is used for displaying an information item, and the information item comprises a session item and/or a message item”), there are no additional elements that add a practical application (i.e., Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG) or significantly more (i.e., Step 2B of the 2019 PEG) to the abstract idea (Also see MPEP §2106.05(a)(I), “…in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology”). As such claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-3 fail to add any additional limitations that limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method, which solely comprise displaying steps (see claim 1), from otherwise being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper. As such, similar to claim 1, claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 4, similar to above, displaying information (i.e., “wherein information of the first predetermined event is displayed at the top…”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind and/or using pen and paper and is thus directed to the mental process/abstract idea. However, claim 4 adds the additional limitation of the session interface (i.e., “opening a session interface of the first session… displayed at the top of the session interface of the first session)”, which is not a step that can be performed mentally. Nevertheless, under step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation of the ‘session interface’, recited at a high level of generality, considered individually and in combination with the display limitations of claim 1, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., online conference/communication) (see MPEP §2106.05(h)) and/or is analogous to using generic computer components (i.e., session interface) to otherwise facilitate a mental process step (e.g., communication) using a computer (see MPEP §2106.05(f)), and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Moreover, considered under step 2B of the 2019 PEG, “opening a session interface of the first session, wherein information of the first predetermined event is displayed at the top of the session interface of the session” represents well understood, routine, conventional activities in the online conference/communication arts (see for example, Enete et al. (US 7,984,098), i.e., Instant Message/IM window 905, see Fig. 9, including information of the first predetermined event [e.g., “Sender Screenname”] being displayed at the top of the session interface of the session”). Therefore, the added limitation, in combination with the displaying limitation of claim 1, does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 5-6, similar to claims 1-3, regardless of whether the first session is with a robot assistant or non-robot user, the method itself, which as noted in claim 1 solely comprises steps of displaying information related to an event fixedly and preferentially in a list, could still be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper. As such, for similar reasons noted above with respect to claim 1, claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 recites the additional steps of “determining a sorting position of the first information item in the information flow list based on an update time of the first information item and displaying the first information item”, which, even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper and therefore falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 8 recites the additional steps of “displaying, in the first information item, information related to a first predetermined event related to a target object, and aggregately displaying information related to the first predetermined event related to other first objects”, which, even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper and therefore falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 9 recites the additional steps of: “preferentially displaying, in the first information item, information related to the first predetermined event related to the target object”; “aggregately displaying information related to the first predetermined event related to other first objects”; “determining a next target object with the earliest start time from other uncompleted first objects”; “displaying, in the first information item, information related to a first predetermined event related to the next target object with the earliest start time”; “switching information preferentially displayed in the first information item from information related to the first predetermined event related to the target object to information related to a first predetermined event related to another first object”; “displaying a detail interface corresponding to the first information item, wherein the information related to a first predetermined event related to each of the first objects is displayed in the detail interface”; “refraining from automatically cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item in the information flow list of the current user”; and “automatically cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item in the information flow list of the current user”.
However, even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, the method of the claimed invention could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper and therefore the claimed invention falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 recites the further step of: “fixedly displaying the first information item at the top of the information flow list of the current user”, which, even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper and therefore falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 recites the further step of: “fixedly and preferentially displaying a first information item related to the first object in an information flow list of a current user comprises: determining a target group to which the first session belongs, the target group comprising at least one group; fixedly and preferentially displaying the first information item in respective information flow list corresponding to each target group, or fixedly and preferentially displaying the first information item in an information flow list corresponding to a designated target group in the target group”, which, even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper and therefore falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 recites the further step of: “cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item related to the first object in the information flow list of the current user”, which, even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper and therefore falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 13 fails to add any additional limitations that limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method, which solely comprise displaying steps (see claim 1), from otherwise being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper. As such, similar to claim 1, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 recites the further step of: “state information of the schedule is displayed in the first information item, and the state information of the schedule is updated as a state of the schedule is updated”; and “…cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item of the schedule”, which, even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper and therefore falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 fails to add any additional limitations that limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method, which solely comprise displaying steps (see claim 1), from otherwise being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper. As such, similar to claim 1, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 16 recites the further step of: “…fixedly and preferentially displaying a session item corresponding to the conference group in the information flow list, displaying information related to the first predetermined event in the session item corresponding to the conference group, and cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item”; “…cancelling the fixed and preferential display of a first information item related to the conference”; “cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item related to the conference”; and “adding the first information item to a completed group”. However, even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, the claimed invention could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, and therefore falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 17, similar to above, displaying/updating state information (i.e., “… wherein the method comprises at least one of the following: … state information of the conference is displayed in the first information item, and the state information of the conference is updated as a state of the conference is updated”) even in combination with the displaying steps of claim 1, could broadly be performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper and therefore falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Moreover, since there are no additional limitations that impose a limit on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention from being performed entirely mentally and/or using pen and paper, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 18-20, the use of generic computer components (see claims 18-19, i.e., “electronic device, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor”; and claim 20, i.e., “non-transitory readable storage medium configured for storing program code”) to otherwise perform the mental process/abstract idea of claims 1 and/or 7, fails to add a practical application or significantly more to the claim (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). As such for similar reasons as noted with respect to claims 1-16, claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg et al. (US 9,024,747)(“Faaborg”), in view of Benchenna et al. (US 9,769,106)(“Benchenaa”), in further view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0344196)(“Lee”).
As per claim 1, Faaborg teaches a method for processing information, comprising:
in response to a first predetermined event (see abstract, i.e., “responsive to determining that the threshold amount of time has elapsed”) related to a first object (e.g., “a communication, message, an alarm, a reminder, etc.”, see col. 1, lines 36-39, also see Fig. 1, ref. 14), … displaying a first information item (see Fig. 1, ref. 16A-16E) related to the first object in an information flow list of a current user (see Fig. 1, ref. 14); and
displaying information related to the first predetermined event in the first information item (see Fig. 1, which illustrates displaying text/information related to any of a communication, message, alarm, or reminder), wherein the information flow list is used for displaying an information item Id., and the information item comprises a session item (i.e., a reminder of a meeting/appointment, see col. 5, lines 47-48, and/or “instant message”, see col. 5, lines 42-45, read as a “session item”) and/or a message item (e.g., e-mail, SMS, etc., see col. 5, lines 42-45).
As per claim 1, Faaborg however does not expressly teach “preferentially and fixedly” displaying the first information item related to the first object.
Nevertheless, first, displaying information preferentially in a list, was well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Benchenaa teaches the ability to display notifications/information items in a list from top to bottom preferentially based on relative priority levels (see Fig. 6, and col. 6, lines 12-45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the list in Faaborg to preferentially display the notification/information items to the user. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user “to quicky discriminate between important and unimportant notifications” (see Benchenna, col. 1, lines 40-41).
Secondly, in the same art of notification management, Lee teaches the ability to pin (read as “fixedly”) certain notifications in a list to prevent deletion/expiration from a notification list (see for example abstract, ¶0010 and ¶0060).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Faaborg with the teachings of Lee to allow pinning of notifications (i.e., “fixedly” displaying) in the information flow list. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prevent deletion of important notifications from the list.
As per claim 2, Faaborg further teaches wherein, the first object is associated with a first session (i.e., a reminder of a meeting/appointment, see col. 5, lines 47-48, and/or “instant message”, see col. 5, lines 42-45, read as a “session item”); the first information item is a session item corresponding to the first session. Id.
As per claim 3, Faaborg further teaches the first predetermined event does not comprise that a new message is generated in the first session (see abstract, i.e., “responsive to determining that the threshold amount of time has elapsed”. In other words, unrelated to the generation of a new message in the first session).
As per claim 5, Faaborg further teaches wherein the first session is: … or a group session comprising a non-robot user (e.g., Erica Johnson, Bill Wilson, etc., read as group session with non-robot users, see Fig. 1, ref. 16C).
As per claim 6, Faaborg further teaches … in accordance with a determination that the session associated with the first object comprises the group session, the first session is the group session (e.g., Erica Johnson, Bill Wilson, etc., read as group session with non-robot users, see Fig. 1, ref. 16C).
As per claim 7, Faaborg does not expressly teach, however in the same art as noted above, Lee teaches canceling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item related to the first object in the information flow list of the current user (see Fig. 7, ref. 703-705).
The same motivation for combining Faaborg and Lee in claim 1, applies equally well to claim 7.
However, the combination of Faaborg and Lee does not expressly teach thereafter determining a sorting position of the first information item in the information flow list based on an update time of the first information item and displaying the first information item;
the update time comprises: a time when the fixed and preferential display of the first information item is cancelled and/or a time when a new message is generated in the first session associated with the first object.
Nevertheless, in the same art of notification management, Benchenaa teaches continually updating (which is impliedly based on an update time) and sorting a notification list (see col. 6, lines 55-58, i.e., “the notification containers are continually updated with newly received and previously received notifications based on the relative priority level of such notifications”)
It would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Faaborg with the teachings of Benchenaa to further update and sort the notification list following the time when the fixed and preferential display of the first information item is cancelled (i.e., following the time the notification is unpinned in Lee). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to continuously keep the user apprised of important and unimportant notifications.
As per claim 10, Faaborg does not expressly teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Lee further teaches wherein fixedly and preferentially displaying a first information item related to the first object in an information flow list of a current user comprises:
fixedly displaying the first information item at the top of the information flow list of the current user (see ¶0063-0064, which anticipates the input for pinning notification being applied to any of the notifications listed, including a top notification, i.e., Fig. 4C, ref. 411, alternatively see Fig 5B, wherein the pinned/fixed notification is displayed at the top of the list).
The same motivation for combining Faaborg and Lee in claim 1, applies equally well to claim 10.
As per claim 11, Faaborg does not expressly teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Benchenaa further teaches … determining a target group to which the first session belongs, the target group comprising at least one group (see Fig. 6, e.g., IM/SMS category/group, ref. 604, read as a target group to which at least an IM session belongs, also see col. 8, lines 40-62); and
…preferentially displaying the first information item in respective information flow list corresponding to each target group (see col. 8, lines 40-62 and col. 9, lines 42-47, where within each group/container, notifications are displayed in order of priority).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Faaborg with the teachings of Benchenaa for determining target groups to which a notification of a first session belongs (e.g., an IM/SMS group), and subsequently displaying the notification in an order of priority. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to further assist with determining important and unimportant notifications.
Finally, the combination of Faaborg and Benchenna does not expressly teach …fixedly displaying the first information item in respective information flow list corresponding to each target group.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Lee teaches the use and benefit of pinning or “fixedly” displaying notifications within a list (see, for example, abstract, ¶0010 and ¶0060).
The same motivation for combining Faaborg, Benchenna, and Lee in claim 1, applies equally well to claim 11.
As per claim 12, Faaborg does not expressly teach, however in the same art as noted above, Lee further teaches: in response to a second predetermined event related to the first object (e.g., a user selecting a “snooze option”, see ¶0111), cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item related to the first object in the information flow list of the current user (i.e., “…deleting the notification, for which a snooze function is set”, see ¶0111).
It would have been obvious to modify to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Faaborg with the option to snooze or cancel previously pinned notifications (i.e., “cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item related to the first object in the information flow list”). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to remove and redisplay the notification at a more convenient time.
As per claim 13, Faaborg further teaches wherein the first object comprises a schedule (i.e., calendar event, see col. 5, lines 47-48); the first predetermined event comprises:
a predetermined reminder time of the schedule being up (i.e., a reminder of the calendar event, see col. 5, lines 47-48).
As per claim 15, Faaborg further teaches wherein, the first object comprises a conference (i.e., meeting, see col. 5, lines 47-48);
the first predetermined event comprises one or more of the following:
a start of the conference, a reminder before the start of the conference (i.e., a reminder of the calendar event/meeting, see col. 5, lines 47-48).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and/or 7 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg, Benchenna, and Lee, in further view of Descola et al. (US 2017/0046025)(“Dascola”).
As per claim 4, the combination of Faaborg, Benchenna, and Lee does not expressly teach in response to an operation of triggering the first information item in the information flow list, opening a session interface of the first session, wherein information of the first predetermined event is displayed at the top of the session interface of the first session.
Nevertheless, in the same art of notification management, Dascola teaches opening a session interface (i.e., Messages application/user interface) in response to an operation of triggering a first notification or “first information item” (see ¶0291, i.e., “the tap input [triggering event] on the expanded notification launches the Messages application to a user interface in the Messages application that corresponds to the notification content”), wherein information related to the notification (e.g., “Alice”) is thereafter displayed at the top of the session interface of the first session (see Fig. 5H2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Faaborg, Benchenna, and Lee with the teachings of Dascola for opening session interface in response to a “tap input” or trigger in Faaborg. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to quickly and easily respond to an IM/SMS session/message notification.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg, Benchenna, and Lee, in further view of Shia et al. (US 2014/0208336)(“Shia”) and Moore (EP 2,503,780)(“Moore”).
As per claim 8, Faaborg does not expressly teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Lee further teaches wherein, in response to the number of the first objects is at least two (i.e., a group notification including a plurality of child notifications, see Fig. 8B, ref. 813, also see ¶0089) … aggregately displaying information related to the first predetermined event related to other first objects (i.e., “a child notification count UI 832 indicating the number of child notification (e.g., 4) may be added to the notification 813 which is a group notification”, read as information related to other first objects/child notifications of the predetermined event/group notification).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Faaborg with the teachings of Lee for aggregately displaying information related to other first objects/child notifications of a group notification (i.e., when the number of the first objects is at least two). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for efficiency purposes, thus conserving a display screen for other tasks/notification.
Faaborg in view of Lee, however, does not expressly teach in response to the number of the first objects is at least two, preferentially displaying, in the first information item, information related to a first predetermined event related to a target object, wherein the target object is a first object with the earliest start time.
Nevertheless, in the same art of notification management, Shia teaches a similar method for displaying a group of notification (see Fig. 4, ref. 414), including wherein a top layer, or the displayed notification/target object, corresponds to a notification with the earliest start time (i.e., the most recently received notification, see ¶0067, read as earliest or closest in time, from the perspective of a current time. Alternatively, in the same art of notification management, see also Moore, which describes prioritizing, for display, notifications that are received earliest (see ¶0056). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to display within the top layer of Shia a notification with an earliest received time of the group of notifications. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to accommodate different user preferences).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Faaborg and Lee, with the teachings of Shia for modifying the group notification to display a most recently received notification of the group. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for easier recognition by the user of a most recent group notification.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg, Benchenna, and Lee, in further view of Chaudhri et al. (US 9,507,608)(“Chaudhri”).
As per claim 14, Faaborg further teaches wherein the method comprises at least one of the following:
the current user is a participant of the schedule, or the current user is a user among the participants of the schedule who does not reject the schedule, or the current user is a user among the participants of the schedule who accepts the schedule (see col. 5, lines 45-50, where the calendar appoint relates to a scheduled meeting/appointment, which anticipates the current user is at least a participant of the meeting/appointment).
Faaborg does not expressly teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Benchenaa further teaches in response to the current user’s rejection of the schedule or a start time of the schedule being up, cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item of the schedule (see col. 6, lines 51-54 and col. 10, line 51 - col. 11, line 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove expired or deleted notifications from list of notifications (i.e., “information flow list”) in Faaborg (see Fig. 1, ref. 14). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide additional space for new and important notifications in the list of notification.
Finally, the combination of Faaborg and Benchenaa does not expressly teach state information of the schedule is displayed in the first information item, and the state information of the schedule is updated as a state of the schedule is updated.
Nevertheless, displaying and updating state information within a notification was well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Chaudhri, Fig. 6C, e.g., “40 min ago”, “in 20m”, read as “state information of the schedule”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to including updated state information of the schedule within the notification/fist information displayed in the list of notifications (i.e., “information flow list”) in Faaborg (see Fig. 1, ref. 14). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for easier user recognition of the state of the scheduled meeting.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faaborg, Benchenna, and Lee, in further view of Bhow (US 2010/0098230)(“Bhow”).
As per claim 17, Faaborg does not expressly teach wherein the method comprises at least one of the following:
the first information item has a first control for joining the conference;
the first information item has a first control for joining the conference and different types of the conference corresponding to different styles of the first control;
the first information item has a second control for ignoring the conference; or
state information of the conference is displayed in the first information item, and the state information of the conference is updated as a state of the conference is updated.
Nevertheless, in the same art of notification management, Bhow teaches at least a conference notification (i.e., “fist information item”) having a first control for joining a related conference (see Fig. 5, ref. 84 and 86) and a second control for ignoring the conference (see Fig. 5, ref. 88).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to including a similar control within the notification/first information item of Faaborg. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to quickly and easily join or ignore a conference related to the notification/first information item.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 16, though rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 (see above), for purpose of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, are allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, in the specific combinations and manner recited within the claims, the features of (as interpreted by the Examiner - see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112):
as per claim 9, “…wherein the method comprises:
preferentially displaying, in the first information item, information related to the target object, and/or aggregately displaying information related to other first objects;
after the target object is completed, determining a next target object with the earliest start time from other uncompleted first objects, and displaying, in the first information item, information related to the next target object with the earliest start time;
in response to a predetermined operation of the first information item, switching the information related to the target object to information related to another first object;
in response to a trigger operation for the first information item, displaying a detail interface corresponding to the first information item, wherein information related to each of the other first objects is displayed in the detail interface;
in accordance with a determination that at least one of the other first objects is not completed, refraining from automatically cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item in the information flow list of the current user, and in accordance with a determination that the target object and all of the other first objects are completed, automatically cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item in the information flow list of the current user; and
wherein in accordance with a determination that at least one of the target object and/or the other first objects is ignored, rejected, or ended, the at least one of the target object and/or the other first objects is completed”; and
as per claim 16, “…wherein at least one of the following: the current user is a participant of the conference, or the current user is a user who does not reject a schedule of the conference, wherein the method further comprises:
after fixedly and preferentially displaying the first information item related to the first object in the information flow list of the current user, in accordance with a determination that a conference group of the conference is created, fixedly and preferentially displaying a session item corresponding to the conference group in the information flow list, displaying the information related to the first predetermined event in the session item corresponding to the conference group, and cancelling the fixed and preferential display of the first information item;
in response to an operation of ignoring the conference, cancelling the fixed and preferential display of a first information item related to the conference, or in response to an end of the conference, cancelling the fixed and preferential display of
the first information item related to the conference; and
in response to a completion operation performed on the first information item, adding the first information item to a completed group”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441