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
1. This is in response to application filed on 09/06/2024in which claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-16 are pending, of which claim 1, 15 and 16 are in independent form.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-53 of US Patent 12,086,319, claims 1-48 of US Patent 10,228,765, claims 1-48 of US Patent 10,712,826, Claims 1-27 of US Patent 11,009,960 and Claims 1-45 of US Patent 11,320,910.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as claims 1-16 of the current application are broadened versions of Claims 1-53 of US Patent 12,086,319, claims 1-48 of US Patent 10,228,765, claims 1-48 of US Patent 10,712,826, Claims 1-27 of US Patent 11,009,960 and Claims 1-45 of US Patent 11,320,910.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 5-9, 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten a) in independent form and b) to overcome the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
5. Claims 1, 2-3, 5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hollemans (US PG Pub 2009/0128498) published on May 21, 2009 in view of Thorsander et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0047390) published on February 13, 2014.
As per claim 1, 15 and 16, Hollemans teaches A method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more sensors to detect user inputs:
displaying, via the display generation component, a first user interface; while displaying the first user interface, detecting, via the one or more sensors, a first portion of a first input(Para[0020] sensor detects input, as taught by Hollemans);
in response to detecting the first portion of the first input:
in accordance with a determination that the first portion of the first input meets first criteria, displaying a first portion of a transition to displaying a second user interface that is different from the first user interface(fig 4, 5A-C Para[0021-0023] when the user's finger 34 passes a threshold distance 36, displays different menu icon, as taught by Hollemans);
after displaying the first portion of the transition to displaying the second user interface in response to detecting the first portion of the first input that met the first criteria, detecting, via the one or more sensors, a second portion of the first input that is a continuation of the first portion of the first input(fig 4, 5A-C Para[0021-0023] when the user's finger 34 passes a threshold distance 36, displays different menu icon. When the user finger passes the second threshold, another menu being displayed for selection, as taught by Hollemans);
in response to detecting the second portion of the first input that is a continuation of the first portion of the first input:
in accordance with a determination that the first input, including the first portion of the first input and the second portion of the first input following the first portion of the first input, meets second criteria(fig 4 e.g. crossing threshold distance 36, 42, 44 (first portion, second portion and third portion),.
Hollemans does not teach wherein the first criteria do not require that the first portion of the first
input meets a first input threshold in order for the first criteria to be met
wherein the second criteria require that the first input meets the first input threshold in order for the
second criteria to be met, completing the transition to displaying the second user interface.
On the rother hand, Thorsander teaches wherein the first criteria do not require that the first
portion of the first input meets a first input threshold in order for the first criteria to be met(fig 4-6
Para[0135-0137] user press and hold e.g. 420, does not require drag gesture, as taught by
Thorsander).
wherein the second criteria require that the first input meets the first input threshold in order for
the second criteria to be met(fig 4-6 Para[0135-0137] user press and hold e.g. 420, does not require
drag gesture. Press and hold for 350MS(e.g. 430) includes press and hold for 100ms (e.g. 420 first
input threshold) , as taught by Thorsander),
completing the transition to displaying the second user interface(Para[0137] fig 4The sidebar
444 may appear instantly or through a transitional animation, such as by sliding in from off
the screen or outside the window of the present application in which the sidebar 444 is invoked,
as taught by Thorsander).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hollemans invention with the teaching of Thorsander because doing so would
result in increased visibility by allowing the user to interact with the elements of the underlying user
interface that are not obscured by the side menu, then the side menu would be considered non-modal.
As per claim 2, the combination of Hollemans and Thorsander teaches wherein detecting the
second portion of the first input that is a continuation of the first portion of the first input includes detecting
a continuation of the first portion of the first input followed by detecting an end of the first input(fig 4, 5A-C
Para[0021-0023] when the user's finger 34 passes a multiple threshold distance 36, 42 and 44 and
each portion can be considered as continuation of a gesture, as taught by Hollemans).
As per claim 3, the combination of Hollemans and Thorsander teaches including: in response to detecting the second portion of the first input that is a continuation of the first portion of the first input: in accordance with a determination that the first input, including the first portion of the first input and the second portion of the first input following the first portion of the first input, does not meet second criteria, forgoing completing the transition to displaying the second user interface(fig 4, 5A-C Para[0021-0023] displays menu icon 48 and 42 when the user cross threshold distance 36, 42 and 44. It is obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art that previous menu will display if the user move back before the threshold distance, as taught by Hollemans).
As per claim 4, the combination of Hollemans and Thorsander teaches including: in response to detecting the second portion of the first input that is a continuation of the first portion of the first input: in accordance with a determination that the first input, including the first portion of the first input and the second portion of the first input following the first portion of the first input, does not meet second criteria before the end of the first input is detected, redisplaying the first user interface(fig 4, 5A-C Para[0021-0023] displays menu icon 48 and 42 when the user cross threshold distance 36, 42 and 44. It is obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art that previous menu will display if the user move back before the threshold distance, as taught by Hollemans).
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hollemans (US PG Pub 2009/0128498) published on May 21, 2009 in view of Thorsander et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0047390) published on February 13, 2014 in further view of Kim (US PG Pub 2014/0101535) published on April 10, 2014.
As per claim 10, the combination of Hollemans and Thorsander does not teach wherein the first user interface is a user interface of a first application and the second user interface is a home screen.
On the other hand, Kim teaches wherein the first user interface is a user interface of a first application and the second user interface is a home screen(fig 23 shows home and application screen, as taught by Kim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hollemans and Thorsander invention with the teaching of Kim because doing so
would result in increased visibility by allowing the user to interact with the elements in one screen while
displaying other applications on another screen.
7. Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hollemans (US PG Pub 2009/0128498) published on May 21, 2009 in view of Thorsander et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0047390) published on February 13, 2014 in further view of Chaudhri (US PG Pub 2014/0101535) published on April 10, 2014.
As per claim 11, the combination of Hollemans and Thorsander does not teach wherein the first user interface is a secondary page of a multi-page home screen, and the first user interface is a primary page of the multi-page home screen.
On the other hand, Chaudhri teaches wherein the first user interface is a secondary page of a multi-page home screen, and the first user interface is a primary page of the multi-page home screen(fig 5A-B shows multiple page home screen, as taught by Chaudhri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Hollemans and Thorsander invention with the teaching of Chaudhri because doing so
would result in increased visibility by distributing applications across multiple display.
As per claim 12, the combination of Hollemans, Chaudhri and Thorsander teaches wherein the second user interface is a home screen, wherein the home screen includes a first folder icon that corresponds to a first folder that includes one or more folder items(fig 5A-D shows home includes folder, which includes multiple applications e.g. 5004-1-a, 5005-2, as taught by Chaudhri); and
the first user interface includes an expanded view of the first folder that includes larger representations of the one or more folder items(fig 5s-T e.g. 5076, 5002-4, as taught by Chaudhri).
As per claim 14, the combination of Hollemans, Chaudhri and Thorsander teaches wherein the second user interface is a home screen(fig 4A-B shows home screen, as taught by Chaudhri), and the third user interface is a multitasking user interface(Para[0348-0359], as taught by Chaudhri).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hibi(US PG Pub 2012/0096376) discloses transient state in which touching an arbitrary point on the digital image 401 with a touch pen 501 or the like is performed and the dragging operation to the left is performed. When the dragging operation is effective, the digital image follows the dragging operation and moves. In the figure, a reference sign Wm indicates a movement amount of the digital image in the horizontal direction.
9. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
10. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM EST.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Tuesday, August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights