Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The action is responsive to the communications filed on 2/2/2026. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14 are amended. Claims 2, 12 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are newly added. Claims 1, 10, 11 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 are pending,
Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14 are amended,
Claims 2, 12 are cancelled,
Claims 21-22 are newly added,
Claims 1, 10, 11 are independent claims,
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 2/2/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections, since Applicant filed Terminal Disclaimer, the double patenting rejections are withdrawn; with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-22 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of new rejection ground(s).
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George Underwood et al (US Publication 20140143683 A1, hereinafter Underwood), and in view of Lawrence Yang et al (US Publication 20150350143 A1, hereinafter Yang), and Marc, Prud’Hommeaux et al (US Patent 9035887 B1, hereinafter Prud).
As for independent claim 1, Underwood discloses: A method of displaying a user interface (Underwood: [0043], retrieving action-option selection, the action-option is preferably a secondary view that is displayed directly after completion of a gesture), comprising: causing a display of a user-generated message on a screen (Underwood: Fig. 3, displaying messages on a screen); detecting a discard motion comprising a lateral movement across the screen (Underwood: [0043], retrieving action-option selection, the action-option is preferably a secondary view that is displayed directly after completion of a gesture … a long swipe to the right is the delete action; please note a long swipe is a lateral movement across the screen); sliding the display of the user-generated message along the screen in a direction of the detected discard motion (Underwood: [0043], retrieving action-option selection, the action-option is preferably a secondary view that is displayed directly after completion of a gesture … a long swipe to the right is the delete action); while detecting the discard motion, causing display of a discard instruction (Underwood: Fig. 12 and [0038], a second gesture-state may be obtained by a user making a gesture which transitions from the first state to the second state. The progress through the ordered gesture-states may be reflected in the user interface; while detecting the gesture input of moving the message item “Song1.mp3” to the right, the “Delete instruction” is displayed in the revealed area of the moved “Song1.mp3” with a visual cur of changing transparency); and discarding the displayed user-generated message (Underwood: [0043], retrieving action-option selection, the action-option is preferably a secondary view that is displayed directly after completion of a gesture … a long swipe to the right is the delete action).
Underwood discloses displaying the transitions progress of the gesture (Underwood: Fig. 12 and [0038]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recognize that the transitions progress for a delete gesture is a discard instruction, in addition, in an analogous art of displaying status changing in response to user interaction, Yang clearly discloses: while detecting the discard motion, causing display of a discard instruction (Yang: Fig. 6C and [0235], “Trash” is changing till the threshold distance is reached; please note displaying “Trash” and changing it till the threshold distance is reached is displaying a discard instruction till the threshold is reached);
Underwood and Yang are in analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, displaying status changing in response to user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Underwood using the teachings of Yang to include changing the graphic representation of “Trash” till a threshold is reached. The motivation is to provide Underwood’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to aware the progress of a delete operation so user experience is improved.
Further, Underwood and Yang do not disclose increasing an opacity in proportion to a lateral range of the discard motion, in another interactive user interface, Prud discloses: initially displayed at a first opacity and comprising an opacity increasing in proportion to a lateral range of the discard motion up to a second opacity until reaching a motion threshold without changing an opacity of the user-generated message (Prud: Column 18, Lines 17-19, if the user executed a downward swipe gesture on display screen 204, then rendering module 402A may increase the opacity of the graphical object; Column 18, Lines 26-36, the opacity of the graphical object may be adjusted based on the length of the swipe gesture; that is, a long swipe may cause a large adjustment in opacity level, while a short swipe may cause a small adjustment in opacity level. As another example, the opacity of the graphical object may be adjusted based on the speed of the swipe gesture; that is, a fast swipe may cause a large adjustment in opacity level, while a slow swipe may cause a small adjustment in opacity level. The amount of adjustment of the opacity of the graphical object may be based on other factors or a combination of many factors; please note the opacity may be adjusted based on the length of the swipe gesture in proportion);
Underwood and Yang and Prud are in analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, displaying status changing in response to user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Underwood using the teachings of Prud to include adjusting the opacity of the graphical object based on the length of the swipe gesture in proportion. The motivation is to provide Underwood’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to aware the progress of a gesture so user experience is improved.
Claims 2, 12 cancelled
As for claim 3, Underwood-Yang-Prud discloses: providing haptic feedback once the motion threshold is reached (Underwood: [0039], The threshold between two gesture-states in a first direction can be proportional to the input mechanism used to generate the gesture input).
As for claim 6, Underwood-Yang-Prud discloses: wherein the discard motion is a swiping action (Underwood: [0043], retrieving action-option selection, the action-option is preferably a secondary view that is displayed directly after completion of a gesture … a long swipe to the right is the delete action).
As for claim 7, Underwood-Yang-Prud discloses: wherein the direction is leftwards and the discard motion is a finger moving leftward on the screen (Underwood: [0039], the swipes may be described as a short left swipe, a long left swipe, a short right swipe, and a long right swipe).
As for claim 9, Underwood-Yang-Prud discloses: wherein the displayed message includes video (Underwood: [0051], The digital content can be media file items (photos, video, music, and the like).
As per Claim 10, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 11, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 13, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 3 are incorporated herein.
As for claim 14, Underwood-Yang-Prud discloses: the motion threshold is one third of a length of the screen (Underwood: [0039], The threshold between two gesture-states in a first direction can be proportional to the input mechanism used to generate the gesture input … the swipes may be described as a short left swipe, a long left swipe, a short right swipe, and a long right swipe).
As per Claim 17, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 6, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 6 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 7, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 7 are incorporated herein.
As per Claim 20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 9, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 9 are incorporated herein.
As for claim 22, Underwood-Yang-Prud discloses: wherein detecting the discard motion comprises detecting continuous contact with a touch-sensitive surface of the screen throughout the lateral movement (Underwood: [0039], The threshold between two gesture-states in a first direction can be proportional to the input mechanism used to generate the gesture input … the swipes may be described as a short left swipe, a long left swipe, a short right swipe, and a long right swipe; please note at least a long right swipe is a continuous lateral movement)
6. Claims 4, 15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood and Yang and Prud as applied on claims 1, 11, and further in view of Glen Weyl et al (US Publication 20160267740 A1, hereinafter Weyl).
As for claim 4, Underwood-Yang does not disclose rubber banding resistance, Weyl discloses: wherein sliding the display includes rubber banding resistance (Weyl: [0074], software may offer virtual resistance, such as by requiring the participant to go an increasing number of times or distance the farther the slider is moved … the device may have an elastic band exercising increasing force on a mechanical slider that has a foam tip that can be recognized by the smartphone as a user's finger sliding across the screen).
Underwood and Yang and Weyl are in analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, displaying status changing in response to user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Underwood using the teachings of Weyl to include rubber banding resistance effect. The motivation is to provide Underwood’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to aware the progress of an operation so user experience is improved.
As per Claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 4, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 4 are incorporated herein.
As for claim 21, Underwood-Yang-Prud-Weyl discloses: if the discard motion is released before reaching the motion threshold, returning the user-generated message to an original position on the screen (Weyl: [0074], software may offer virtual resistance, such as by requiring the participant to go an increasing number of times or distance the farther the slider is moved … the device may have an elastic band exercising increasing force on a mechanical slider that has a foam tip that can be recognized by the smartphone as a user's finger sliding across the screen; please note an elastic band effect may return the object to its previous position).
7. Claims 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood and Yang and Prud as applied on claims 1, 11, and further in view of Craig Fellenstein et al (US Publication 20040073616 A1, hereinafter Fellenstein), and Kirk Ouimet (US Publication 20170161382 A1, hereinafter Ouitmet).
As for claim 5, Underwood-Yang does not teach displaying a discard warning if the message includes creative tools, the creative tools including special effects, Fellenstein discloses: displaying a discard warning if the message includes creative tools, the creative tools including special effects (Fellenstein: [0027], displaying a warning before deleting an object).
Underwood and Yang and Fellenstein are in analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, displaying status changing in response to user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Underwood using the teachings of Fellenstein to include displaying warning message before deleting an object. The motivation is to provide Underwood’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to know the deleting operation is going to occur so user experience is improved.
Further, Ouimet discloses: if the message includes creative tools, the creative tools including special effects (Ouimet: [0059], Other annotation data that may be stored within the image table 308 is so-called “lens” data. A “lens” may be a real-time special effect and sound that may be added to an image or a video);
Underwood and Yang and Ouimet are in analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, displaying status changing in response to user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Underwood using the teachings of Ouimet to include special effect annotations. The motivation is to provide Underwood’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to know the deleting operation is going to occur so user experience is improved.
As per Claim 16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 5, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 5 are incorporated herein.
8. Claims 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Underwood and Yang and Prud as applied on claims 1, 11, and further in view of Kirk Ouimet (US Publication 20170161382 A1, hereinafter Ouitmet).
As for claim 8, Underwood-Yang does not clearly disclose an ephemeral message, Ouitmet discloses: wherein the message is an ephemeral message having a time-limited duration (Ouimet: [0031], “EMPHEMERAL MESSAGE” in this context refers to a message that is accessible for a time-limited duration).
Underwood and Yang and Ouimet are in analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, displaying status changing in response to user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Underwood using the teachings of Ouimet to include emphemeral message.
As per Claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 8, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 8 are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30 am to 5:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
/HUA LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118