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 . 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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, 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) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2015/0363092) in view of Jitkoff et al. (US 2014/0075374).
Regarding claim 1, Morton teaches/suggests: A method comprising:
detecting a input on a screen of an electronic device (Morton [0049] “FIG. 5 illustrates one exemplary user interface that may be rendered via interaction of collaboration client 315 with platform 340” [0058] “selection of a message within pane 554”);
responsive to detecting said
Morton does not teach/suggest:
wherein the first card and the second card at least partially overlap during and after the animating of the first card and the second card.
Jitkoff, in view of Morton, teaches/suggests:
wherein the first card and the second card at least partially overlap during and after the animating of the first card and the second card (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Jitkoff [0032] “Stacking workspaces in this manner may allow the user to visualize where the workspaces are relative to one another, thereby allowing the user to easily navigate between workspaces”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the email messages of Morton to be displayed in a stack of message panes as taught/suggested by Jitkoff to allow the user to easily navigate between them.
Morton further does not teach/suggest a swipe input, the swipe input having a substantially linear direction. Nor does Morton teach/suggest wherein animating the multiple different cards responsive to detecting said swipe input comprises:
animating a first card of the multiple different cards by moving the first card in a substantially same direction as the swipe input, wherein animating the first card comprises displaying at least a first portion of the first card that was not displayed prior to detecting the swipe input;
animating a second card of the multiple different cards by moving the second card in the substantially same direction as the swipe input and the first card, wherein animating the second card comprises displaying at least a second portion of the second card that was not displayed prior to detecting the swipe input;
Jitkoff further teaches/suggests a swipe input, the swipe input having a substantially linear direction (Jitkoff [0036] “the user may perform the swipe gesture along direction 702 (e.g., toward a top of desktop workspace 202) to navigate from desktop workspace 202 to calendar workspace 402”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the selection of Morton as modified by Jitkoff to include the swipe gesture of Jitkoff for the navigation. As such, Morton as modified by Jitkoff teaches/suggests:
animating a first card of the multiple different cards by moving the first card in a substantially same direction as the swipe input, wherein animating the first card comprises displaying at least a first portion of the first card that was not displayed prior to detecting the swipe input (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Jitkoff [0036] “the user may perform the swipe gesture along direction 702 (e.g., toward a top of desktop workspace 202) to navigate from desktop workspace 202 to calendar workspace 402”);
animating a second card of the multiple different cards by moving the second card in the substantially same direction as the swipe input and the first card, wherein animating the second card comprises displaying at least a second portion of the second card that was not displayed prior to detecting the swipe input (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Jitkoff [0032] “Stacking workspaces in this manner may allow the user to visualize where the workspaces are relative to one another, thereby allowing the user to easily navigate between workspaces” [0036] “the user may perform the swipe gesture along direction 702 (e.g., toward a top of desktop workspace 202) to navigate from desktop workspace 202 to calendar workspace 402” [In view of Morton and Jitkoff, a second message pane meets the second card.]);
Regarding claim 2, Morton as modified by Jitkoff teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein:
animating the first card on the screen of the electronic device includes causing the first card to travel a first distance (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Jitkoff [0032] “Stacking workspaces in this manner may allow the user to visualize where the workspaces are relative to one another, thereby allowing the user to easily navigate between workspaces”); and
animating the second card on the screen of the electronic device includes causing the second card to travel a second distance different from the first distance (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Jitkoff [0032] “Stacking workspaces in this manner may allow the user to visualize where the workspaces are relative to one another, thereby allowing the user to easily navigate between workspaces”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3, Morton as modified by Jitkoff teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein:
animating the first card on the screen of the electronic device includes causing the first card to travel at a first velocity (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554”); and
animating the second cardon the screen of the electronic device includes causing the second card to travel at a second velocity allowing the user to easily navigate between workspaces”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Morton and Jitkoff are silent regarding at a second velocity different from the first velocity. However, the concept and advantages of the different velocities are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious that the message panes of Morton as modified by Jitkoff travel at different velocities for visual effects.
Regarding claim 4, Morton as modified by Jitkoff teaches/suggests: The method of claim 3, further comprising:
prior to detecting the swipe input, concurrently displaying a third portion of the first card and a fourth portion of the second card (Jitkoff [0032] “Stacking workspaces in this manner may allow the user to visualize where the workspaces are relative to one another, thereby allowing the user to easily navigate between workspaces” [The stacking meets the concurrently displaying.]);
wherein the swipe input traverses both the third portion of the first card and the fourth portion of the second card (Jitkoff [0036] “the user may perform the swipe gesture along direction 702 (e.g., toward a top of desktop workspace 202) to navigate from desktop workspace 202 to calendar workspace 402”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Morton as modified by Jitkoff teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein:
animating the first card comprises causing the first card to follow a first predetermined trajectory (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554”); and
animating the second card comprises causing the second card to follow a second predetermined trajectory that has a relationship to the first predetermined trajectory (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Jitkoff [0032] “Stacking workspaces in this manner may allow the user to visualize where the workspaces are relative to one another, thereby allowing the user to easily navigate between workspaces” [The sliding meets the relationship.]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claims 8-12 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1-5, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Morton as modified by Jitkoff further teaches/suggests a non-transitory machine readable medium storing sets of instructions (Morton Fig. 15: data storage 1570).
Claims 15-19 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1-5, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Morton as modified by Jitkoff further teaches/suggests at least one processing unit; and a non-transitory machine readable medium storing sets of instructions (Morton Fig. 15: microprocessor 1550 and data storage 1570).
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2015/0363092) in view of Jitkoff et al. (US 2014/0075374) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Vaughan et al. (US 2009/0119597).
Regarding claim 6, Morton as modified by Jitkoff does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 5, further comprising:
initiating a first animation of the first card before animating the second card;
determining that an attribute of the first card satisfies a predetermined condition; and
responsive to determining that the attribute of the first card satisfies the predetermined condition: initiating a second animation of the second card.
Vaughan, however, teaches/suggests initiating a first animation before animating the second (Vaughan [0074] “The assigned actions can be configured … to begin in an overlapping manner (i.e., one beginning after the previous action has begun but before the previous action has ended)”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sliding of Morton as modified by Jitkoff to be overlapping as taught/suggested by Vaughan for visual effects. As such, Morton as modified by Jitkoff and Vaughan teaches/suggests:
initiating a first animation of the first card before animating the second card (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Vaughan [0074] “The assigned actions can be configured … to begin in an overlapping manner (i.e., one beginning after the previous action has begun but before the previous action has ended)”);
determining that an attribute of the first card satisfies a predetermined condition (Vaughan [0074] “The assigned actions can be configured … to begin in an overlapping manner (i.e., one beginning after the previous action has begun but before the previous action has ended)”); and
responsive to determining that the attribute of the first card satisfies the predetermined condition: initiating a second animation of the second card (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Jitkoff [0032] “Stacking workspaces in this manner may allow the user to visualize where the workspaces are relative to one another, thereby allowing the user to easily navigate between workspaces” Vaughan [0074] “The assigned actions can be configured … to begin in an overlapping manner (i.e., one beginning after the previous action has begun but before the previous action has ended)”).
Regarding claim 7, Morton as modified by Jitkoff and Vaughan teaches/suggests: The method of claim 6, wherein determining that the attribute of the first card satisfies the predetermined condition comprises determining that the first card has travelled to a predetermined location in the first predetermined trajectory (Morton [0058] “Pane 554 begins sliding left to overlap a portion of pane 552, while new pane 556 (in this case, a Read Message pane) simultaneously slides in from the right to overlap a portion of pane 554” Vaughan [0074] “The assigned actions can be configured … to begin in an overlapping manner (i.e., one beginning after the previous action has begun but before the previous action has ended)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein.
Claims 13 and 14 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 6 and 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim 20 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2010/0251151 – animate stacked bar
US 2014/0213342 – animate stack of chips
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights