Detailed Action
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
I. Zhang and Adib teach claims 1–11, 13–16, 19, and 20.
Claims 1–11, 13–16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0318893 A1 (hereafter “Zhang”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,092,291 B1 (hereafter “Adib”).
Claim 1
Zhang teaches:
A computer system configured to communicate with one or more display generation components, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
As shown in FIGS. 7A–7AZ, Zhang teaches a computer system 700 in communication with a display generation component 702A. Zhang ¶ 224. Computer system 700 is another implementation of devices 100, 300, and 500 discussed earlier in Zhang’s disclosure, see Zhang ¶ 222 (explaining that computer system 700 is discussed to show embodiments of user interfaces implemented on any of devices 100, 300, or 500). All of these devices include memory, processing units, and sets of instructions stored in the memory that cause the processing units to perform the functions described in Zhang’s disclosure, and discussed below. See Zhang ¶¶ 56, 61, 80, and 129.
displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first user interface that includes a folder, wherein the folder contains a first plurality of icons corresponding to a respective plurality of lightweight applications,
As an initial matter, the Examiner observes that the above claim language is ambiguous, because it could mean a few different things. To be sure, the prior art teaches all of them for reasons that will become clear below, but it is important that all three interpretations be discussed so that the record is clear.1
Under a first interpretation, the first user interface needs to display the folder, but the first user interface does not need to display the first plurality of icons, so long as the folder displayed in the first user interface contains (i.e., in storage) the first plurality of icons. For example, looking at FIG. 6A of the Applicant’s drawings, the first user interface is home user interface 610, the folder is folder icon 610, and there are nine lightweight application icons 620A–620I contained within the folder 610F (see Spec. ¶ 180 and FIG. 6B), even though the full plurality is not displayed on home user interface 610.
Under a second interpretation, the first user interface needs to display the whole folder and all of its icons. Under this interpretation, the claimed first user interface is folder user interface 620 shown in FIG. 6B, and the first plurality of icons are the nine lightweight application icons 620A–620I displayed therein.
Finally, it is also noted that FIG. 6A illustrates the folder icon 610F with a preview of its contents, including a first plurality of lightweight application icons A–D. This display would also fall within the scope of the claim language, with the first user interface corresponding to home user interface 610.
For its part, Zhang teaches each of the above interpretations, because FIGS. 7AP and 7AQ of Zhang’s disclosure directly correspond to FIGS. 6A and 6B of the present application, with folder icon 797 (FIG. 7AP) including a preview of the icons in its contents, and with folder user interface 795 depicting the contents of the folder as well. Either way, with reference to FIGS. 7AP and 7AQ, Zhang teaches that “in response to detecting user selection 729 of folder icon 797, computer system 700 displays, via display generation component 702 (e.g., overlaid on a portion of home user interface 796), a folder user interface 795 (e.g., a pop-up) that includes lite-application icons 799A–799E first described above with reference to FIG. 7AN.” Zhang ¶ 313.2
Among the lite-application icons 799A–799E, there is at least a “first” plurality of them that correspond to the same full application counterpart: lite application icons 799B and 799E correspond to two different “lite-versions” of the same “Food Review” application, which is a “full-version application counterpart” to those lite version applications. See Zhang ¶¶ 308 and 325.
Note that while 799B and 799E are included together with other lite-version applications that correspond to different full-version applications, there is no hard heterogeneity requirement anywhere in Zhang’s disclosure for the folders to have a mixture of lite applications from different developers or different full versions. System 700 accumulates them organically, over a period of time, “to assist in performing contextually relevant tasks.” Zhang ¶ 480. If a user only ever encounters contextual triggers for lite versions of a single full-version application, the folder will organically contain only those applications.
each icon of the first plurality of icons representing an operation of a first full application,
“In some embodiments, a lite-version of the first application enables a subset of (e.g., but not all of) the features (e.g., capabilities) of the counterpart full-version application.” Zhang ¶ 333. For instance, in the example above with 799B and 799E, the operations for the two lite version applications involve retrieving and displaying data from different respective vendors. See Zhang ¶¶ 277 and 388–390.
the first plurality of icons including: a first icon of a first lightweight application that corresponds to a first operation of the first full application, wherein activation of the first icon causes display, via the one or more display generation components, of a user interface of the first lightweight application corresponding to the first operation of the first full application; and
“FIG. 7AR illustrates computer system 700 displaying, via display generation component 702 (e.g., and after displaying folder user interface 795 that includes lite-application icons 799A–799E), a lite user interface 793 corresponding to lite-application icon 799E from FIG. 7AQ (e.g., corresponding to the ‘Food Review’ lite-version application to ‘Burger Queen’) (e.g., in response to detecting activation of (e.g., user selection of; user’s tap input on) lite-application icon 799E in FIG. 7AQ).” Zhang ¶ 315.
a second icon of a second lightweight application that corresponds to a second operation of the first full application, wherein the second lightweight application is different from the first lightweight application and activation of the second icon causes display, via the one or more display generation components, of a user interface of the second lightweight application corresponding to the second operation of the first full application;
As mentioned above, in addition to lite-application icon 799E, the folder further includes “a second lite-application icon 799B corresponding to a second lite-version application (e.g., the ‘Food Review’ lite-version application for ‘Coffee Shop’).” Zhang ¶ 308. And, as also previously explained, this second lite-version application is another lite version of the “Food Review” full version counterpart, but for the “Coffee Shop” vendor data.
Zhang does not go through the pains of repeating the paragraph 315 discussion for each and every application icon shown in the home user interface 796 (or the folder) but suffice it to say that the above disclosure for icon 799E applies to the all of the other icons. That is, Zhang clearly teaches that selecting a lite version application icon with a user input causes the computer system 700 to launch and display the lite version application icon that corresponds to that icon. See Zhang ¶¶ 346 and 348.
after displaying the first user interface that includes the folder, receiving a request to download and/or install an application; and
Zhang teaches a few different interfaces, separate from the home user interface, to which the user may navigate and provide a request to download and install the full version of an application. See, e.g., Zhang ¶¶ 237–238 and 524–525.
in response to receiving the request to download and/or install the application and in accordance with a determination that the application is the first full application, automatically updating the first user interface
Zhang teaches at least two post-full version installation operations that are relevant to the above claim language. For one, in response to installing the full-version of an application, much like the claimed invention, device 700 makes a determination about any lite-version applications corresponding to the full-version of the application that are currently installed on the device, albeit not necessarily for the sake of removing the lite-versions. Zhang ¶ 571. Second, as with every application that device 700 downloads and installs, device 700 is programed such that “home user interface 796 includes a plurality of application icons 798A–798I corresponding to respective full-version applications that are available on (e.g., installed on) computer system 700.” Zhang ¶ 307.
Separate from the full version installation trigger, Zhang further teaches that computer system 700 provides a “delete affordance 1122” (FIG. 11H), which deletes (e.g., removes) all lite-version applications that are currently installed on computer system 700, thereby triggering computer system 700 to also delete the now-empty folder icon (1112 in the FIG. 11 series), such that “home user interface 1106 includes application icons 1108A-1108I corresponding to full-version (e.g., regular) applications, but does not (e.g., no longer) includes folder icon 1112 as in FIG. 11C.” Zhang ¶ 458.
wherein activation of the icon of the first full application causes display, via the one or more display generation components, of a user interface of the first full application.
“As used herein, an ‘installed application’ refers to a software application that has been downloaded onto an electronic device (e.g., devices 100, 300, and/or 500) and is ready to be launched (e.g., become opened) on the device.” Zhang ¶ 216. This is done by selecting an affordance corresponding to the application on the home user interface. Zhang ¶¶ 329 and 336.
Based on the above, it can be seen that Zhang and the claimed invention only differ in that Zhang did not bridge the known trigger of installing a full version of a plurality of lite applications—already known to trigger certain other cleanup operations—with the otherwise known process of mass deleting a plurality of lite version applications and removing their emptied folder as a result. In other words, the claimed techniques of automatically bulk deleting a plurality of lite-version applications, emptying a lite-version application folder, deleting the empty folder from a home user interface, installing a full version application, adding an icon for the full version application, and even having the installation of the full version application trigger certain other cleanup operations involving its corresponding lite version applications were all known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
However, this bridge, along with several other overlapping features, was also known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For instance, Adib teaches the same underlying architecture as Zhang, in which a user interface presents “interactive thumbnail images” (i.e., icons) for “stub applications,” which are provided as “limited functionality” versions of corresponding “full applications.” Adib col. 3 ll. 41–49 and col. 5 ll. 40–45.
Within this known architecture, and prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Adib already recognized that it would be prudent to respond to a request to download and install full versions of stub applications by both creating a home screen icon for the full version of the application and removing the stub application and its interactive thumbnail from the device. See Adib col. 6 ll. 2–7 and 44–47 and col. 14 ll. 20–23 and 26–27; see also Adib col. 7 line 56 to col. 8 line 4 (confirming that the full application has its own, similar corresponding thumbnail image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Zhang’s known device 700, which was already configured to delete multiple lite applications and their corresponding folder as well as install full versions of the lite applications, with the known technique of triggering such a replacement in response to a request to download and install the full version of a lightweight (i.e., “stub”) application. One would have been motivated to combine each of these known operations together for two reasons.
For one, removing the stub/lite versions of full version applications helps avoid user confusion, because “representing the stub application 112 and representing its corresponding full application may be considered to be substantially similar,” and therefore, “a user may be unable to tell the difference.” Adib col. 7 ll. 56–63. Thus, there was evidence that one would have been motivated to combine Adib with Zhang independent from the hindsight of the claimed invention.
Second, as a matter of obviousness law, “providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishe[s] the same result” is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.04 (subsection (III)) (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)). Here, the task of installing a full version of a lightweight application and task of mass-deleting lightweight applications and their containing folder was already known from Zhang, and the claimed invention merely automated the transition between those two tasks by having the full version installation trigger the lightweight version and folder deletion. In this case, we not only have legal precedent explaining that automating a manual activity is obvious, but we even have evidence from Adib that process for automating the manual task was known as well.
Accordingly, there is at least a preponderance of evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with Adib in the manner now claimed.
Claim 2
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
in response to receiving the request to download and/or install the application and in accordance with a determination that the application is a second full application, different from the first full application, automatically updating the first user interface to include an icon of the second full application without replacing the folder with the icon of the second full application, wherein activation of the icon of the second full application causes display, via the one or more display generation components, of a user interface of the second full application.
“As used herein, an ‘installed application’ refers to a software application that has been downloaded onto an electronic device (e.g., devices 100, 300, and/or 500) and is ready to be launched (e.g., become opened) on the device.” Zhang ¶ 216. This is done by selecting an affordance corresponding to the application on the home user interface. Zhang ¶¶ 329 and 336. Furthermore, all of the foregoing applies to full version applications for which there are not any corresponding lite version applications. See Zhang ¶¶ 345–346.
Claim 3
The following rejection is based on the rejection of the “first interpretation” mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, in which the “folder” is the folder icon 610F with visual representations of the lightweight applications shown in FIG. 6A of the Applicant’s disclosure.
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
while displaying the first user interface with the folder, detecting activation of the folder that contains the first plurality of icons corresponding to the respective plurality of lightweight applications; and
“FIG. 7AP illustrates computer system 700 displaying, via display generation component 702, user selection 729 of folder icon 797 displayed in home user interface 796.” Zhang ¶ 312.
in response to detecting activation of the folder, displaying, via the one or more display generation components: the first icon of the first lightweight application; and the second icon of the second lightweight application.
“In FIG. 7AQ, in response to detecting user selection 729 of folder icon 797, computer system 700 displays, via display generation component 702 (e.g., overlaid on a portion of home user interface 796), a folder user interface 795 (e.g., a pop-up) that includes lite-application icons 799A-799E first described above with reference to FIG. 7AN.” Zhang ¶ 313.
Claim 4
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 3, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting an activation input; and in response to detecting the activation input: in accordance with a determination that the activation input is directed to the first icon of the first lightweight application, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface of the first lightweight application, wherein the user interface of the first lightweight application includes an option to perform the first operation; and
“FIG. 7AR illustrates computer system 700 displaying, via display generation component 702 (e.g., and after displaying folder user interface 795 that includes lite-application icons 799A–799E), a lite user interface 793 corresponding to lite-application icon 799E from FIG. 7AQ (e.g., corresponding to the ‘Food Review’ lite-version application to ‘Burger Queen’) (e.g., in response to detecting activation of (e.g., user selection of; user’s tap input on) lite-application icon 799E in FIG. 7AQ).” Zhang ¶ 315.
and in accordance with a determination that the activation input is directed to the second icon of the second lightweight application, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface of the second lightweight application, wherein the user interface of the second lightweight application includes an option to perform a second operation that is different from the first operation.
Much like the “Burger Queen” lite version of Food Review, the folder further includes a second, activatable lite-application icon 799B corresponding to the “Coffee Shop” lite version of the “Food Review” application, which retrieves and displays information about the Coffee Shop vendor rather than the Burger Queen vendor, and allows the user to order menu items from Coffee Shop. See Zhang ¶¶ 270–272.
Claim 5
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 1, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
detecting activation of the icon of the first full application; and
“As used herein, an ‘installed application’ refers to a software application that has been downloaded onto an electronic device (e.g., devices 100, 300, and/or 500) and is ready to be launched (e.g., become opened) on the device.” Zhang ¶ 216. This is done by selecting an affordance corresponding to the application on the home user interface. Zhang ¶ 329.
in response to detecting activation of the icon of the first full application, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a user interface of the first full application.
“In some embodiments, in response to detecting the activation (e.g., 701, 717, 719, 723, 727) of the first selectable user interface object (e.g., 706B, 734B, 752B, 762B, 784B) (818), in accordance with a determination that the first application is available on (e.g., downloaded on, installed on, stored on, can be launched/accessed on) the computer system (e.g., 700) (828), the computer system displays (830), via the display generation component (e.g., 702), a third user interface (e.g., a user interface of a full-version of the first application), where the third user interface is a user interface of the first application that is configured to perform the activity.” Zhang ¶ 336.
Claim 6
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 5,
wherein the first full application is configured to provide the first operation of the first lightweight application and the second operation of the second lightweight application.
Lite-application icon 799B corresponds to the second lite-version application (e.g., the “Food Review” lite-version application for “Coffee Shop”), while the fifth lite-application icon 799E corresponds to the fifth lite-version application (e.g., the “Food Review” lite-version application for “Burger Queen”). Zhang ¶ 308. Each of these two provides a respective “subset of (e.g., but not all of) the features (e.g., capabilities) of the counterpart full-version application.” Zhang ¶ 333.
Claim 7
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 5,
wherein the first full application is configured to provide all of the operations of the first lightweight application and all of the operations of the second lightweight application.
“In some embodiments, a lite-version of the first application enables a subset of (e.g., but not all of) the features (e.g., capabilities) of the counterpart full-version application.” Zhang ¶ 333. Per the plain understood meaning of “subset,” each subset is understood to be fully contained within the complete set to which it belongs.
Claim 8
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 5,
wherein the first full application is configured to provide more operations than provided by the respective plurality of lightweight applications.
In addition to the Burger Queen and Coffee Shop lite-versions of Food Reviews, there is also a third vendor, “Food King,” for whom “Food Reviews” has a third lite-version application. Zhang ¶ 388.
Claim 9
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 5, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
receiving a first set of one or more user inputs; and
“In FIG. 7C, while displaying sheet user interface 706 that can be used to initiate the activity (e.g., ordering menu items, such as food and/or drinks) associated with the first restaurant, computer system 700 detects, via the one or more input devices (e.g., via a touch sensitive surface of the one or more input devices), an activation 701 of (e.g., user selection of; user’s tap input on) affordance 706B.” Zhang ¶ 234.
in response to receiving the first set of one or more user inputs, navigating the first full application to access a user interface of the first full application that is configured to initiate the first operation.
“In FIG. 7D, in response to detecting activation 701 of affordance 706B, in accordance with a determination that an application of a second type (e.g., a full-version/a regular version of an application) of the developer (indicated via indication 706D) is already installed on (and thus already available on) computer system 700, computer system 700 displays, via display generation component 702, a user interface 708 of the application of the second type that is already installed on computer system.” Zhang ¶ 235.
Claim 10
Claim 10 is identical to claim 9, except that the first full application navigates to the access the second operation rather than the first operation (i.e., the operation that corresponds to the second lightweight application).
As explained in the rejection of claim 9, Zhang’s computer system 700 is programmed to receive an input activating an affordance to perform a function (e.g., ordering food from a first vendor) that corresponds to a first lite-version application, and, upon determining that the full version of the lite-version application is installed, cause to the full version of the application to navigate to user interface for performing the first operation. Zhang ¶¶ 234–235. Zhang further teaches that each of the lite-version applications are “subsets” of their full-version counterparts. Zhang ¶ 333.
To the extent someone could argue that claim 10 is different from Zhang, it is only different in the sense that Zhang does not unnecessarily repeat its discussion in paragraphs 234–235 for a second example lite-version application. The takeaway for the person of ordinary skill in the art is that paragraphs 234–235 teach them to check for the full version of an application when a lite-version’s functionality is offered to the user, and, when the full version is installed, to automate to the full version’s functionality that the lite-version would have provided. Since Zhang further teaches that there is a second lite-version application that provides the food ordering functionality for a second, different vendor (e.g., the coffee shop application from icon 799B), it follows that applying this teaching to that second vendor results in navigating the full version of the Food Reviews application to the ordering page of the coffee shop application, in a corresponding case where the coffee shop’s lite-version application is offered.
Accordingly, claim 10 is obvious over the prior art for similar reasons as given in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 11
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 1,
wherein displaying the first user interface that includes the folder includes displaying the folder at a first position within an arrangement of user interface objects that includes a plurality of application icons.
“FIG. 7AO illustrates computer system 700 displaying, via display generation component 702, home user interface 796 including application icons 798A-798I, where home user interface 796 also includes a folder icon 797 for lite-application icons.” Zhang ¶ 310.
Claim 13
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 11,
wherein the arrangement of the user interface objects includes an arrangement that is spread across a plurality of pages.
“In some embodiments, the home user interface (e.g., 796) includes one or more screens or pages that include the plurality of application user interface objects (e.g., 798A-798I) (e.g., app icons).” Zhang ¶ 345.
Claim 14
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 1,
wherein automatically updating the first user interface to replace the folder with the icon of the first full application includes ceasing to display the folder.
Upon triggering the deletion of the lite-version applications, the home user interface is updated to “include[] application icons 1108A-1108I corresponding to full-version (e.g., regular) applications, but does not (e.g., no longer) includes folder icon 1112 as in FIG. 11C.” Zhang ¶ 458 (the connection of this excerpt to the lite-version deletion is in the preceding paragraph).
Claim 15
Zhang and Adib teach the computer system of claim 1,
wherein automatically updating the first user interface to replace the folder with the icon of the first full application includes deleting the first icon of the first lightweight application and the second icon of the second lightweight application.
As a reminder, the rejection of claim 1 is based on an obvious combination of Zhang with Adib where the installation of a full version application triggers the known process of bulk-deleting lite applications corresponding to the newly installed full version application, and that, as a general matter, installed applications are displayed with selectable icons on the home user interface.
In addition to teaching this, Zhang further teaches that when the lite-version applications are removed during the bulk-removal process, the lite-application icons are also removed from the device. See Zhang ¶ 458.
Claim 16
The only limitation that claim 16 adds to its parent claim 1 is that, in addition to replacing the lightweight application icons, their underlying corresponding applications are deleted as well. Claim 1 was rejected based on the combination of Zhang and Adib deleting their underlying lite-version/stub applications as the overarching mechanism that causes their respective icons to be replaced (i.e., in the rejection of claim 1, the full removal of the lite/stub applications was an extra step that fell within the open-ended scope of the claim). Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected over those additional findings provided in the rejection of claim 1 involving the removal of the underlying lite/stub applications. See Zhang ¶ 458 and Adib col. 6 ll. 2–7 and 44–47 and col. 14 ll. 20–23 and 26–27.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is wholly encompassed by the elements of claim 1, because claim 1 requires a full computer system with a memory that stores the same instructions as the computer readable storage medium of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 1.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is directed to exactly the same method that the computer system of claim 1 performs as part of its normal operation. As such, the prior art’s disclosure of the computer system necessarily discloses the method that it performs. See MPEP § 2112.02.
II. Zhang, Adib, and Lortz teach claim 18.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Adib as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0187149 A1 (“Lortz”).
Claim 18
Zhang, as combined with Adib, teaches the computer system of claim 1, and Zhang further teaches
the first lightweight application and the second lightweight application correspond to a manufacturer of a vehicle
One reason for providing lite-versions of full applications is so that “the developer [of the full version application] can provide its application platform for use by a plurality of different vendors and the application can be customized for a respective vendor.” Zhang ¶ 231. To that end, Zhang teaches that one such vendor for whom a lite-version application may be provided is a vehicle seller/lessor. See Zhang ¶¶ 283–291.
It is acknowledged that a vehicle vendor is not necessarily the same juristic entity as a vehicle’s manufacturer, but this is unimportant to the conclusion of obvious for three reasons. First, claim language that merely describes the environment in which an apparatus operates do not limit the scope of the claimed apparatus. See, e.g., Nazomi Communications, Inc., v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed Cir. 2014); Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 794-95 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and Advanced Software Design Corporation v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The prior art does not need to teach the legal arrangement of a company that corresponds to the lightweight applications, or even a vehicle in which the computer-system is installed, because claim 18 is directed to the computer system itself, not the broader environment in which the computer system operates.
Second, while it is true that automobiles are often sold by a third party dealer, this is not necessarily true for all automobiles in all parts of the world, and even if it were, the claim language is directed to the broader genus of manufacturers of any type of vehicle, not merely automobiles.
Finally, even assuming for the sake of argument that the claim language was mandatory and the vehicle vendor in Zhang’s disclosure is merely a dealer, the claim only says that the lightweight applications must “correspond to” the manufacturer of a vehicle in which the computer system is installed. A lite-version application sponsored by a vendor who sells automobiles at least “corresponds to” a vehicle manufacturer because the vendor sells the manufacturer’s vehicles.
All of that said, it is nevertheless acknowledged that neither Zhang nor Adib explicitly disclose the computer system being “installed” in a vehicle whose manufacturer corresponds to an application on the device. As explained above, this is an obvious difference at least because claim language that merely describes the environment in which an apparatus operates does not limit the scope of the claimed apparatus.
However, even if that point does not hold, Lortz taught such an arrangement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Specifically, Lortz teaches an arrangement where an in-vehicle infotainment (“IVI”) system directs a mobile device to download and install an application that enables interoperability between the IVI and the mobile device using a QR code or NFC tag. Lortz ¶¶ 11–12.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this arrangement to Zhang and Adib’s lite/stub version architecture, particularly since Zhang’s system already had the same arrangement of directing the mobile device to install a lite-version application by scanning a QR code or NFC tag (albeit outside the context of a vehicle). See Zhang ¶¶ 265–268 and 276. One would have been motivated to apply this architecture to the in-vehicle context because “establishing a pairing of the wireless devices with the other device or vehicle is often a cumbersome and time-consuming process.” Lortz ¶ 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm 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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 See MPEP § 2173.04 (explaining that “[a] broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter,” and therefore, when a claim reads on the prior art in multiple ways, it should simply be rejected over the prior art).
2 Please note, since Zhang explicitly refers back to an earlier description of lite-application icons 799A–799E “first described above with reference to FIG. 7AN” (i.e., where the icons are shown outside the folder, but are otherwise the same), this rejection may refer back to Zhang’s initial disclosure of application icons 799A–799E “described above” for further details.
Prosecution Insights