DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/20/2024.
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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Cross-Application Card Stacking with Dynamic Resizing and Content Updating
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 17-18 are independent.
Claims 19-20 newly added.
Claim Interpretation
Herein, the claimed term “card” is construed by the examiner as being limited to a “service card” that presents new application messages, e.g., app notifications or reminders, as described in Instant Specification, ¶¶ 3 and 80 (as published), such as displaying a message containing current weather information, ¶ 77.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or 112(1st)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was/were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17 and 18 are directed to a third card being generated with different content in response to an operation on a “second card”. While Instant Specification ¶¶ 88 and 92 (as published), and FIGS. 3A-3C show that operating on an application icon can result in displaying related application’s information as a card, the specification lacks sufficient detail on how the content changes when the operation is on a “card” (service card) instead of an icon of the application.
Claims 2-16 and 19-20 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are rejected for failing to clearly define how a “third card” with content that is “different from content displayed on the second card” is generated upon interaction with a “second card.” While the specification and figures 3A-3C show that operating on an application icon (e.g., having an image representative of the application) can reveal related application information “as a card” (this related information displayed as a card can be broadly interpreted as different content when compared to the image representative of the application), the specification doesn’t make it clear how content changes when a “service card” itself (as defined in paragraph 80) is operated upon, rather than an application icon. Herein, the term “card” is construed by the examiner as being limited to a “service card” that presents app notifications or reminders, as described in paragraph 80.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first operation or the second operation comprises dragging the second card of the second application or the icon of the third application”. Claim 1 recites that the “first operation” is specifically for a “second card of a second application”, and claim 3 recites that the “second operation” is specifically for “an icon of a third application”. Therefore, the recitation in claim 5 that “the first operation or the second operation comprises dragging the second card of the second application or the icon of the third application” renders the scope of the claim ambiguous as it contradicts the scopes of claim 1 and claim 3 in regards to what the first and second operations are for. Claim 20 is a device for accomplishing the steps in claim 5 and has similar issues. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the first and second operations are for either a card or an icon, respectively, and for a second and third application, respectively, and that they are both dragging operations. Correction required.
Claims 2-16 and 19-20 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler; William M. et al. (hereinafter Tyler – US 20240211117 A1) in view of Freihold; Karoline et al. (hereinafter Freihold – US 20130326583 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Tyler teaches:
A method, comprising:
displaying a first card of a first application in a first display region of an electronic device, wherein the first card has a first size; (on the screen of Portable Multifunction Device 100 [electronic device] displaying one or more of the widgets corresponding to different applications [first card of a first application] on Fig. 5C2 in their respective display regions and sizes, see ¶ 283 and figs. 5C2-5C3 [sheets 66-67] and ¶ 282)
detecting a first operation of a user for a second card of a second application, (widgets can be dragged and added to a widget stack displaying a top widget, e.g., moving widget 5022j to widget stack 5024b displaying widget 5022k at the top of the stack, ¶¶ 349 and fig. 5E4[sheet 153])
wherein the second card has a second size, and the second size is different from the first size; (widgets can have different sizes, as illustrated in figs. 5C2-5C3 [sheets 66-67] and ¶ 282)
and stacking and displaying a third card of the second application and the first card in the first display region in response to the first operation, (widgets can be dragged and added to a widget stack displaying a top widget, e.g., moving widget 5022j to widget stack 5024b displaying widget 5022k at the top of the stack, ¶¶ 349 and fig. 5E4[sheet 153]. Herein, the moved card is broadly interpreted as “a third card” at least because the screen has to reproduce a new instance of the card in the new location.)
wherein the third card has the first size, (widgets can have different sizes, as illustrated in figs. 5C2-5C3 [sheets 66-67] and ¶ 282. The widget can be automatically resized to fit the dimensions of a stack when added, ensuring uniform sizing for all stacked elements, ¶ 515)
[…].
Tyler does not appear to expressly teach, but Freihold teaches:
and content displayed on the third card is different from content displayed on the second card. (Widgets [cards], described as being application-generated, changeable information arrangements that have the functionality of displaying dynamic data, such as media, weather forecasts, or stock portfolios, ¶ 94. A creation of new widget functionality [e.g., displaying information] is achieved by detecting when a user drags one UI component, such as a widget, over another, triggering a lookup table to display a combined interface, ¶¶ 3 and 128-129. Herein, the claimed term “card” is construed by the examiner as being limited to a “service card” that presents app notifications or reminders, as described in Instant Specification ¶ 80. See 112(b) rejection above. )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Tyler to include and content displayed on the third card is different from content displayed on the second card, as taught by Freihold.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method by intuitively activating applications and/or extending the functionality of existing applications, Freihold ¶ 127.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein the third card covers the first card for display. (widgets can be dragged and added to a widget stack displaying a top widget, e.g., moving widget 5022j to widget stack 5024b displaying widget 5022k at the top of the stack [covering the first card for display], Tyler ¶¶ 349 and Tyler fig. 5E4[sheet 153]. Herein, the moved card is broadly interpreted as “a third card” at least because the screen has to reproduce a new instance of the card in the new location. Freihold also teaches displaying UI components on top of each other in stack/pile, ¶ 103 and fig. 9F)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
further comprising:
detecting a second operation of the user for an icon of a third application; (the stack of widgets includes multiple widgets, e.g., three or four, Tyler figs. 5E3[sheet 152] and 5E8[sheet 157] and Tyler ¶¶ 357 and 364. The creation of the new widget functionality [e.g., displaying information] is achieved by detecting when a user drags one UI component, over another, include dragging an icon [an icon of a third application] over a widget, triggering a lookup table to display a combined interface, Freihold ¶¶ 3 and 128-129).
and stacking and displaying a fourth card of the third application, the third card, and the first card in the first display region in response to the second operation, wherein the fourth card has the first size. (the stack of widgets includes multiple widgets, e.g., three or four, Tyler figs. 5E3 [sheet 152] and 5E8[sheet 157] and Tyler ¶¶ 357 and 364. widgets can have different sizes, as illustrated in Tyler figs. 5C2-5C3 [sheets 66-67] and Tyler ¶ 282. The widget can be automatically resized to fit the dimensions of a stack when added, Tyler ¶ 515).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein the fourth card covers the third card for display. (widgets can be dragged and added to a widget stack displaying a top widget, e.g., moving widget 5022j to widget stack 5024b displaying widget 5022k at the top of the stack [covering the first card for display], Tyler ¶¶ 349 and Tyler fig. 5E4[sheet 153]. Herein, the moved card is broadly interpreted as “a third card” at least because the screen has to reproduce a new instance of the card in the new location. Freihold also teaches displaying UI components on top of each other in stack/pile, Freihold ¶ 103 and fig. 9F)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein the first operation or the second operation comprises dragging the second card of the second application or the icon of the third application to the first display region or a preset region corresponding to the first display region, (as discussed for claims 1 and 3, an application’s widget/card or an application icon can be dragged to a specific location, such as to a stack of widgets, Tyler figs. 5E3[sheet 152] and 5E8[sheet 157] and Tyler ¶¶ 357 and 364, Freihold ¶¶ 3 and 128-129)
wherein a time of stay in the first display region or the preset region exceeds a first preset duration. (termination of a drag input is determined by cessation of movement of the contact/drag for a threshold amount of time, Tyler ¶¶ 456 and 511 and Tyler figs. 5H8 and 5H35-5H37. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the first and second operations are for either a card or an icon, respectively, and for a second and third application, respectively, and that they are both dragging operations.)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein the first display region is a region on a desktop of the electronic device, and wherein the third card of the second application or the icon of the third application is located on the desktop. (icons/widgets are arranged/rearranged on one or more home screen pages [desktop], e.g., see Tyler ¶¶ 49 and 233 and Tyler fig. 5A2. Home screen pages are considered desktops because they act as separate, swipeable workspaces, allowing users to organize app icons, widgets, and folders into distinct contexts or categories)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
further comprising continuing to display the icon of the third application on the desktop of the electronic device. (after the activation, which generates the new functionality widget, the original icon, e.g., 1510 continues to be displayed on a home screen, albeit overlapped by the new widget, see Freihold fig. 15E and Freihold ¶¶ 96 and 129 and Freihold fig. 8A.
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
further comprising stopping displaying the second card of the second application on the desktop of the electronic device. (widgets can be dragged from a location on a home screen and adding into a widget stack displaying a top widget, e.g., moving widget 5022j to widget stack 5024b displaying widget 5022k at the top of the stack, Tyler ¶¶ 349 and fig. 5E4[sheet 153], which removes it from the original location on the screen [stopping displaying the second card of the second application on the desktop])
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
further comprising displaying prompt information when the first operation or the second operation is detected and either a) a quantity of cards in the first display region is equal to a preset quantity, or b) the second application or the third application does not support the first size, wherein the prompt information indicates that a card cannot be added. (when a widget is added to a drop location that doesn’t have sufficient space, the insertion will fail or be prevented, Tyler ¶ 49. The drop location can be a widget stack, Tyler ¶ 757, that only supports certain sizes, e.g., same or smaller sizes, Tyler ¶ 503. The user can be cued [prompted] concerning the failure [does not support the first size], e.g., through tactile output patterns, Tyler ¶ 69)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein the fourth card, the third card, and the first card are arranged in sequence from top to bottom in the first display region. (sequential order of widgets in a stack from top to bottom, Tyler ¶ 367 and Tyler figs. 5D2 and Tyler 5E16-5E19.)
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein the first display region comprises a first control, and the method further comprises:
detecting a third operation of the user for the first control;
and switching a first one of a plurality of cards displayed in the first display region from the fourth card to the third card in response to the third operation. (a swipe input [third operation] on a card/widget [first control] can be used to navigate to a different card/widget in the stack, Tyler ¶ 302 and Tyler fig. 5C25)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
further comprising:
detecting a fourth operation of the user for the fourth card;
and adjusting a sequence of the first card, the fourth card, and the third card based on a location of the fourth card in the first display region in response to the fourth operation. (dragging operation on a widget of the stack can be used to change the sequence/order of the stack, Tyler ¶ 367 and Tyler figs. 5E16-5E19)
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
further comprising:
detecting a fifth operation of the user for the third card;
and displaying the second card of the second application on the desktop of the electronic device in response to the fifth operation,
and stopping displaying the second card in the first display region [stack]. (dragging a widget away from the stack to any user user-selected location, e.g., on a home screen page, removes the widget from the stack and displays it on that location, Tyler ¶¶ 51 and 664 and Tyler FIGS. 5E16, and 5E20-5E23)
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein the fifth operation comprises dragging the third card to a desktop outside the first display region. (dragging a widget away from the stack [outside the first display region] to any user user-selected location, e.g., on a home screen page, removes the widget from the stack and displays it on that location, Tyler ¶¶ 51 and 664 and Tyler FIGS. 5E16, and 5E20-5E23)
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein the first display region is a region on a first desktop of the electronic device, and the third card of the second application or the icon of the third application is located on a second desktop of the electronic device, wherein the electronic device supports mutual switching between the first desktop and the second desktop. (the device allows switching between different home screen pages, Tyler ¶¶ 229-230 and Tyler FIGS. 5A1-5A36, the widgets can be dragged from one home screen page to another, Tyler ¶¶ 558, 642, and 733)
Independent Claims 17 and 18:
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are directed to an electronic device and medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Claim(s) 19 is directed to an electronic device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 3, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Claim(s) 20 is directed to an electronic device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 5, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 20240211117 A1) in view of Freihold (US 20130326583 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yuki; Yasuhiro (hereinafter Yuki – US 20110072373 A1).
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Tyler-Freihold further teaches:
wherein adjusting the sequence of the first card, the fourth card, and the third card based on the location of the fourth card in the first display region in response to the fourth operation comprises:
dragging the fourth card to move toward the third card in the first display region or a preset region corresponding to the first display region; and exchanging locations of the fourth card and the third card (card positions are switched, e.g., app 2’s widget is now on the top of app 7’s widget, after being on below it, Tyler ¶ 367 and Tyler figs. 5E16 and 5E19)
[…],
and a time of stay of the fourth card exceeds a second preset duration. (drag termination over a target can be a hover/hold or preset duration, Tyler ¶ 504)
Tyler-Freihold does not appear to expressly teach, but Yuki teaches:
that the exchanging of locations are if a center point of the fourth card overlaps any point in the third card (During an object dragging operation, an overlap condition is identified if the center point of the dragged object partially covers another object, ¶¶ 131, 301 and 356).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Tyler to include that the exchanging of locations are if a center point of the fourth card overlaps any point in the third card, as taught by Yuki.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to determine that a drag determination is over/overlapping an object/widget in any known and effective manner known in the art, Yuki ¶¶ 131, 301 and 356, and Tyler ¶ 504
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
LIU; Xiao US 20230099874 A1, is pertinent to claims 1 and 3 for disclosing stacking one or more widgets, ¶ 3, and rearranging icons, ¶ 74.
Thayne; Nile et al. US 20100037168 A1, is pertinent to claim 3 for disclosing dragging an icon to convert it into a widget/car, ¶ 43 and fig 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights