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
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on April 1, 2026, and Drawings filed on April 1, 2026.
2. Claims 1–19 are pending in this case. Claim 18, 19 are independent claims.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 12, 14 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.
With regard to claim 7 the prior arts do not specifically teach the limitation wherein the computer system has a sixth mode in which modification of notification delivery is based on event types of detected events, and wherein the fifth mode has fewer configuration options than the sixth mode.
With regard to claim 9 the prior arts do not specifically teach the limitation of displaying, in the first system user interface, an indication of one or more events for which notification delivery is suppressed in accordance with an active mode of the computer system.
With regard to claim 12 he prior arts do not specifically teach the limitation wherein displaying the first configuration user interface includes displaying a plurality of selectable options that correspond to a plurality of available categories of event content, wherein selection of a respective selectable option of the plurality of selectable options causes a respective available category of event content to be added or removed from the first set of categories of event content.
With regard to claim 14 the prior arts do not specifically teach the limitation of displaying a second system user interface that includes representations of a plurality of notifications, including a plurality of previously displayed notifications and stored notifications for a plurality of previously detected events for which notifications were suppressed, wherein the representations of the plurality of notifications are grouped in accordance with a plurality categories of event content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cranfill, Pub No.: 2021/0109836A1.
With regard to claim 1:
Cranfill discloses a method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more sensors for detecting user inputs (see paragraph 139 FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an exemplary multifunction device with a display and a touch-sensitive surface in accordance with some embodiments. Device 300 need not be portable. In some embodiments, device 300 is a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a tablet computer, a multimedia player device, a navigation device, an educational device (such as a child's learning toy), a gaming system, or a control device (e.g., a home or industrial controller). ): detecting occurrence of a first event of a first event type (see paragraph 223 and 480 for the first event type which is associated with a first application, see fig. 8Q and paragraph 380 wherein the user select limit on specific type of applications); and in response to detecting the occurrence of the first event of the first event type: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a first mode in which notifications corresponding to events of the first event type are permitted, generating a first notification corresponding to the first event (see paragraph 223 and fig. 6MMas illustrated below with reference to FIG. 12I Changing the “Notifications Allowed” setting 698-20 causes the electronic device 500 to present all notifications received at the application, a limited number of notifications, or only highly important notifications. So Select Allow All would allow all notifications without limits, See also 281); in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a second mode in which notifications corresponding to events of the first event type are suppressed and the first event includes first content that meets relevance criteria, generating the first notification corresponding to the first event (see paragraph 481 wherein In some embodiments, in response to detecting the event that corresponds to activation of the auxiliary function of the first application (1304), in accordance with a determination that the restriction criteria have not been met, the electronic device performs (1308) the auxiliary function without displaying the primary user interface of the application (e.g., allowing normal use of or performance of various application-related functions on the electronic device, such as generation of notifications from the application,); and in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in the second mode in which notifications corresponding to events of the first event type are suppressed and the first event does not include content that meets the relevance criteria, forgoing generating the first notification corresponding to the first event (See paragraph 480 In some embodiments, in response to detecting the event that corresponds to activation of the auxiliary function of the first application (1304), in accordance with a determination that restriction criteria (e.g., a user-defined “limit” of usage for the application (e.g., a usage limit or allowance) has been reached) for the first application have been met, the electronic device suppresses (1306) the auxiliary function (e.g., suppressing notification generation functions associated with the application)).
With regard to claim 17:
Cranfill discloses The method of claim 1, including: displaying a respective system user interface, including: in accordance with a determination that a currently active notification delivery mode is subject to a respective set of relevance criteria, displaying a first indication in the respective system user interface indicating that relevance-based notification delivery is active (paragraph 299 FIG. 8Y illustrates a home screen 802 displayed on device 500 when the Social Media category usage limit is reached. In response to the Social Media category usage limit being reached, the appearance of the Social Media Application A icon 440 is updated to reflect that access to the application is restricted (e.g., the icon is grayed out, a restriction badge 876, which optionally replaces the prior-displayed notification badge, overlays the icon).); and in accordance with a determination that the currently active notification delivery mode is not subject to a respective set of relevance criteria, forgoing displaying the first indication in the respective system user interface (see paragraph 366 such as FIG. 8U (e.g., appearances of application icons and notification badges indicate that the applications are not restricted). For example, the electronic device displays one or more application windows associated with one or more applications (e.g., in a multitasking graphical user interface view), or the electronic device displays one or more icons for launching the applications on a home screen of the electronic device.).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
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) 2, 10, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cranfill, in view of Warr, Patent No.; 9693208B2.
With regard to claim 2:
Cranfill does not disclose the aspect wherein notifications corresponding to a second event type, different from the first event type, are permitted in the second mode, and wherein the method includes: detecting occurrence of a second event of the second event type; and in response to detecting the occurrence of the second event of the second event type: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in the second mode in which notifications corresponding to events of the first event type are suppressed and that notifications corresponding to events of the second event type are permitted in the second mode, generating a second notification for the second event.
However Warr discloses the aspect wherein notifications corresponding to a second event type, different from the first event type, are permitted in the second mode, and wherein the method includes: detecting occurrence of a second event of the second event type; and in response to detecting the occurrence of the second event of the second event type: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in the second mode in which notifications corresponding to events of the first event type are suppressed (See paragraph 42 column 9 line 32 to 49 For example, user may select which of the communications features associated with the mobile device and additional communications features associated with ancillary devices that the user wishes to temporarily suspend or disable while in a do-not-disturb mode. Accordingly, a user interface may be provided such that various features and services that can be temporarily suspended or disabled when the mobile device is in the do-not-disturb mode are selectable via the user interface.”) and that notifications corresponding to events of the second event type are permitted in the second mode, generating a second notification for the second event (See paragraph 43 column 9 line 32 to 49 wherein within each communications feature or services, a subset of communication may be selectable in certain implementations. For example, one or more contacts in an email service or application may be selected for bypass such that emails may be received from the one or more selected contacts even when device is in a do-not-disturb mode.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Warr to Cranfill so the system can determine different event types are provide user with notification based on the event types and whether they should be provided to the user.
With regard to claim 10:
Cranfill and Warr disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the relevance criteria include a first set of criteria that correspond to a first set of user-specified categories for event content, and wherein a determination of whether content of a respective event meets the relevance criteria is based on whether the content of the respective event belongs to the first set of user-specified categories of event content (Warr paragraph 43 column 9 line 32 to 49 within each communications feature or services, a subset of communication may be selectable in certain implementations. For example, one or more contacts in an email service or application may be selected for bypass such that emails may be received from the one or more selected contacts even when device is in a do-not-disturb mode.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Warr to Cranfill so the system can determine different event types are provide user with notification based on the event types and whether they should be provided to the user.
With regard to claim 13:
Cranfill and Warr disclose the aspect of detecting occurrence of a second plurality of events, corresponding to a second plurality of event types (See paragraph 42 column 9 line 32 to 49 For example, user may select which of the communications features associated with the mobile device and additional communications features associated with ancillary devices that the user wishes to temporarily suspend or disable while in a do-not-disturb mode. Accordingly, a user interface may be provided such that various features and services that can be temporarily suspended or disabled when the mobile device is in the do-not-disturb mode are selectable via the user interface.”); and after detecting the occurrence of the second plurality of events: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a sixth mode in which the first set of user-specified categories of event content are used to determine whether to display notifications, evaluating respective events of the second plurality of events to determine if the second plurality of events include content that belong to the first set of user-specified categories of event content (See paragraph 43 column 9 line 32 to 49 wherein within each communications feature or services, a subset of communication may be selectable in certain implementations. For example, one or more contacts in an email service or application may be selected for bypass such that emails may be received from the one or more selected contacts even when device is in a do-not-disturb mode.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Warr to Cranfill so the system can determine different event types are provide user with notification based on the event types and whether they should be provided to the user.
With regard to claim 15:
Cranfill and Warr discloses The method of claim 1, wherein notifications for events of the first event type are suppressed in the second mode based on a first set of event properties, wherein the relevance criteria includes a set of permitted content categories, wherein the first event of the first event type meets the relevance criteria when the content of the first event belongs to the set of permitted content categories (Warr paragraph 42 column 9 line 32 to 49: “It is to be further appreciated that various aspects and implementations of do-not-disturb modes are contemplated. For example, user may select which of the communications features associated with the mobile device and additional communications features associated with ancillary devices that the user wishes to temporarily suspend or disable while in a do-not-disturb mode. Accordingly, a user interface may be provided such that various features and services that can be temporarily suspended or disabled when the mobile device is in the do-not-disturb mode are selectable via the user interface.”) and wherein the first event of the first event type does not meet the relevance criteria when the content of the first event does not belong to the set of permitted content categories (Warr paragraph 43 column 9 line 32 to 49 within each communications feature or services, a subset of communication may be selectable in certain implementations. For example, one or more contacts in an email service or application may be selected for bypass such that emails may be received from the one or more selected contacts even when device is in a do-not-disturb mode.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Warr to Cranfill so the system can determine different event types are provide user with notification based on the event types and whether they should be provided to the user.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cranfill, in view of Mao, Pub. No.: 2018/0324567A1.
With regard to claim 3:
Cranfill does not disclose the method of claim 1, including: detecting occurrence of a third event of a third event type, different from the first event type; and in response to detecting the occurrence of the third event of the third event type: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a third mode in which the relevance criteria are not used to determine whether to display notifications, and that notifications corresponding to events of the third event type are permitted in the third mode, generating a third notification for the third event; and in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a fourth mode in which the relevance criteria are not used to determine whether to display notifications, and that notifications corresponding to events of the third event type are suppressed in the fourth mode, forgoing generating the third notification for the third event.
However Mao discloses the method of claim 1, including: detecting occurrence of a third event of a third event type, different from the first event type; and in response to detecting the occurrence of the third event of the third event type: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a third mode in which the relevance criteria are not used to determine whether to display notifications, and that notifications corresponding to events of the third event type are permitted in the third mode, generating a third notification for the third event (see fig. 1C wherein the user can choose to either to block or not to block a event from a specific event type such as a event from a specific application without determine any relevant criteria, see paragraph 6 After the user taps a calendar option according to FIG. 1B, the mobile phone may enter a user interface of FIG. 1C, and the user may set, in this interface, whether to allow a notification of the calendar, whether to allow a preferential prompt of the calendar, and whether to enable three reminding manners of the calendar.); and in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a fourth mode in which the relevance criteria are not used to determine whether to display notifications, and that notifications corresponding to events of the third event type are suppressed in the fourth mode, forgoing generating the third notification for the third event (see fig. 1C wherein the user can choose to either to block notification from an event type such as calendar event without determine any relevant criteria, see paragraph 6 After the user taps a calendar option according to FIG. 1B, the mobile phone may enter a user interface of FIG. 1C, and the user may set, in this interface, whether to allow a notification of the calendar, whether to allow a preferential prompt of the calendar, and whether to enable three reminding manners of the calendar.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Mao to Cranfill so the system would allow the user to determine whether to receive or not receive notification directly without any determination of relevance criteria in situation such as when the user does not want to be disturbed at all.
Claims 4, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cranfill, in view of Siddiq, Pub. No.: 2019/0289367A1.
With regard to claim 4:
Cranfill does not disclose The method of claim 1, including: detecting occurrence of a first plurality of events, corresponding to a first plurality of event types; in response to detecting the occurrence of the first plurality of events: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a fifth mode in which the relevance criteria are used to determine whether to display notifications, evaluating respective events of the first plurality of events in accordance with the relevance criteria, irrespective of respective event types that correspond to the respective events of the first plurality of events; in accordance with a determination that a first subset of the first plurality of events meet the relevance criteria, displaying a first set of notifications corresponding to the first subset of the first plurality of events; and in accordance with a determination that a second subset of the first plurality of events do not meet the relevance criteria, forgoing display a second set of notifications corresponding to the second subset of the first plurality of events.
However Siddiq discloses the aspect wherein detecting occurrence of a first plurality of events, corresponding to a first plurality of event types; in response to detecting the occurrence of the first plurality of events: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is operating in a fifth mode in which the relevance criteria are used to determine whether to display notifications, evaluating respective events of the first plurality of events in accordance with the relevance criteria, irrespective of respective event types that correspond to the respective events of the first plurality of events (See paragraph125 In response to determining that the event is relevant to the user, process 800 may continue at 825 by determining whether a notification about the event should supersede the mode of operation that prevents presentation of information about events. For example, the control circuitry 604 may access a user's social media feeds via I/O path 602 and determine that messages about the gold medal match for Woman's Ice Hockey between Team USA and Team Canada are trending based on the number of messages sent related to the event and the time period during which the messages were sent.); in accordance with a determination that a first subset of the first plurality of events meet the relevance criteria, displaying a first set of notifications corresponding to the first subset of the first plurality of events (See paragraph 126 In response to determining that a notification about the event should supersede the mode of operation that prevents presentation of information about events, process 800 continues at step 830 where the control circuitry 604 overrides the mode of operation that prevents presentation of information about events. For example, the control circuitry 604 may disable the do not disturb mode or modify the mode to allow for notifications specific to the event.); and in accordance with a determination that a second subset of the first plurality of events do not meet the relevance criteria, forgoing display a second set of notifications corresponding to the second subset of the first plurality of events (See paragraph 125 In response to determining that a notification about the event should not supersede the mode of operation that prevents presentation of information about events, process 800 concludes at step 890.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Siddiq to Cranfill so the system would allow the user to determine whether to receive or not receive notification directly without any determination of relevance criteria in situation such as when the user does not want to be disturbed at all.
With regard to claim 5:
Cranfill and Siddiq disclose The method of claim 4, including: in accordance with a determination that the first subset of the first plurality of events meet the relevance criteria, displaying the first set of one or more notifications corresponding to the first subset of the first plurality of events, along with one or more indications that the first set of one or more notifications are displayed in accordance with the relevance criteria that are in use (Siddiq see paragraph 6 wherein when the system allows the notifications to overcome the do not disturb and prevent to the user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Siddiq to Cranfill so the system would allow the user to determine whether to receive or not receive notification directly without any determination of relevance criteria in situation such as when the user does not want to be disturbed at all.
With regard to claim 6:
Cranfill and Siddiq disclose the aspect wherein the fifth mode is enabled without requiring activation of a mode in which modification of notification delivery is based on event types of notifications (Siddiq See paragraph125 In response to determining that the event is relevant to the user, process 800 may continue at 825 by determining whether a notification about the event should supersede the mode of operation that prevents presentation of information about events. For example, the control circuitry 604 may access a user's social media feeds via I/O path 602 and determine that messages about the gold medal match for Woman's Ice Hockey between Team USA and Team Canada are trending based on the number of messages sent related to the event and the time period during which the messages were sent.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Siddiq to Cranfill so the system would allow the user to determine whether to receive or not receive notification directly without any determination of relevance criteria in situation such as when the user does not want to be disturbed at all.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cranfill, in view of Cheng, Patent No.: 9003185B2.
With regard to claim 8:
Cranfill does not disclose The method of claim 1, wherein generating the first notification for the first event includes: displaying the first notification for the first event on a first system user interface that is displayed in response to a request to transition the computer system into a restricted state of the computer system or in response to a request to transition out of a low power state into the restricted state of the computer system.
However Cheng discloses the aspect wherein generating the first notification for the first event includes: displaying the first notification for the first event on a first system user interface that is displayed in response to a request to transition the computer system into a restricted state of the computer system or in response to a request to transition out of a low power state into the restricted state of the computer system (See claim. 1 cause the mobile device to transit into a locked state based on the lock instruction received from the server via the communication portion, and control the display portion to display a notification indicating that the mobile device is transitioned into the locked state, wherein the controller determines whether an unlock instruction includes a second password if the unlock instruction is entered by a user of the mobile device through a user input portion of the mobile device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Cheng to Cranfill so the user can see notification when the state of the device is transitioned into restricted state based on setting to keep the user informed.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cranfill, in view of Warr, and further in view in view of Mao.
With regard to claim 11:
Cranfill and Warr do not disclose The method of claim 10, including: displaying a first configuration user interface for a respective mode in which notification delivery is modified, wherein the first set of user-specified categories for event content includes a first category of event content and a second category of event content, different from the first category of event content, at a time when the first configuration user interface is displayed; while displaying the first configuration user interface, detecting a first user input that adds a third category of event content to the first set of user-specified categories for event content, and detecting a second user input that deletes the first category of event content from the first set of user-specified categories for event content, without deleting the second category of event content from the first set of user-specified categories of event content; and in response to detecting the first user input and the second user input, updating the first set of user-specified categories of event content to include the second category of event content and the third category of event content, without including the first category of event content.
However Mao discloses the aspect including displaying a first configuration user interface for a respective mode in which notification delivery is modified, wherein the first set of user-specified categories for event content includes a first category of event content and a second category of event content, different from the first category of event content, at a time when the first configuration user interface is displayed; while displaying the first configuration user interface, detecting a first user input that adds a third category of event content to the first set of user-specified categories for event content, and detecting a second user input that deletes the first category of event content from the first set of user-specified categories for event content, without deleting the second category of event content from the first set of user-specified categories of event content; and in response to detecting the first user input and the second user input, updating the first set of user-specified categories of event content to include the second category of event content and the third category of event content, without including the first category of event content (See fig. 4F and paragraph 98 wherein the user can add and remove different category of events include or exclude from banner notifications). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Cheng to Cranfill so the user has the freedom to choose which categories to be included for the exception for the do not disturb requirement and which categories to be excluded.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cranfill, in view of Warr, and further in view in view of Mao, and further in view of Juenger, patent no.: 11890549B2.
With regard to claim 16:
Cranfill does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein generating the first notification corresponding to the first event includes generating a summary of the content of the first event, and displaying the first notification of the first event, including displaying the summary of the content of the first event in the first notification of the first event.
However Juenger discloses the aspect wherein generating the first notification corresponding to the first event includes generating a summary of the content of the first event, and displaying the first notification of the first event, including displaying the summary of the content of the first event in the first notification of the first event (claim 1 teaches generating a notification summary based on the notification list, wherein the subset is included in the notification summary and corresponds to notifications from the first set; and presenting, on the display, the notification summary comprising the subset of the notifications.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Juenger to Cranfill so the user is notified about the event with a automatically generated summary of the even to allow the user to see a summarized version of the notification to keep the user informed without been overly redundant.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nam, Pub. No.: 20200342081 A1in response to a failure of the user authentication, display a lock state screen or to ignore the input when the duration is less than or equal to the first threshold time, and to display an unlock request message on the display when the duration exceeds the first threshold time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
