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
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 9/25/2024. A filing date 9/25/2024 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of provisional application 63686834 (which was filed on 8/25/2024), provisional application 63657429 (which was filed on 6/7/2024), provisional application 63631375 (which was filed on 4/8/2024), is acknowledged. Claims 1-38 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 37, 38 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
3. Claims 1-12, 16, 20-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David Graham et al (US Publication 20220365640 A1, hereinafter Graham), and in view of Dikla Dotan-Cohen et al (US Publication 20190171693 A1, hereinafter Dotan), and Harsh Singla et al (US Publication 20250106320 A1, hereinafter Singla).
As for independent claim 1, Graham discloses: A method, comprising:
at a computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices (Abstract, a computer system detects user input and displays notifications): detecting that a first set of conditions for displaying a first user interface that corresponds to a restricted state of the computer system are met ([0143], to lock the device by depressing the button and releasing the button before the predefined time interval has elapsed);
in response to detecting that the first set of conditions are met, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the first user interface that corresponds to the restricted state of the computer system ([0190], the indication 5066 is displayed below a time 5062 and a date 5064, which are concurrently displayed on the lock screen user interface with indication 5066), including: in accordance with a determination that a plurality of notifications available to be displayed in the first user interface includes a first notification with first notification content that [meets relevance criteria] and a second notification with second notification content that [meets the relevance criteria] ([0220], the list of users is organized by groups (e.g., “Frequents,” “Pinned Conversations,” and “VIP & Favorites”); [0268], a portion 7230 that provides indications for a news application and a TV application (e.g., for notifications that the portable multifunction device 100 determines are more likely to be relevant to a user (e.g., based on a history of user interaction with different types of applications)), and a “More Updates” portion that includes indications for other applications (e.g., for notifications that the portable multifunction device 100 determines are less relevant to the user), concurrently displaying a representation of the first notification and a representation of the second notification within a first user interface object ([0220], the list of users is organized by groups (e.g., “Frequents,” “Pinned Conversations,” and “VIP & Favorites”); and while displaying the first user interface, including concurrently displaying the representation of the first notification and the representation of the second notification within the first user interface object, detecting a first user input directed to the first user interface object ([0045], a selection of an object); and in response to detecting the first user input directed to the first user interface object: in accordance with a determination that the first user input is directed to a location that corresponds to the representation of the first notification in the first user interface object, performing a first operation with respect to the first notification, and forgoing performing the first operation with respect to the second notification; and in accordance with a determination that the first user input is directed to a location that corresponds to the representation of the second notification in the first user interface object, performing a second operation with respect to the second notification, and forgoing performing the second operation with respect to the first notification ([0341], the settings interface includes (10034) an option for suppressing notifications on a user interface corresponding to a locked state of the computer system. In some embodiments, a separate option, for suppressing notifications a user interface corresponding to the locked state of the computer system, is provided for each distinct activity mode of a plurality of activity modes; [0370], Automatically forgoing the provision of notifications for the first event and the second event, in accordance with the bundled notification settings of the computer system, suppresses provision of notifications for the first event and the second event when a set of conditions (e.g., corresponding to the bundling settings of the computer system) are met without requiring further user input (e.g., further user input to suppress provision of notifications, further user input to provide notifications for the first event and the second event in a bundled notification, further user input to dismiss notifications for the first and/or second event, etc.). Automatically performing an operation when a set of conditions has been met without requiring further user input enhances the operability of the device, which, additionally, reduces power usage and improves battery life of the device by enabling the user to use the device more quickly and efficiently).
Graham discloses determining satisfy particular criteria ([0070]) but does not clearly disclose meeting relevance criteria, in an analogous art of managing the presentation of messages, Dotan discloses: meets relevance criteria (Dotan: [0050], determine if they satisfy a relevance threshold);
Graham and Dotan are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing the presentation of messages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Graham using the teachings of Dotan to include determining if a relevance threshold is met. It would provide Graham’s method with enhanced capabilities of providing most relevant messages to user.
Further, Graham does not expressly disclose separately apply notification setting for a group of notifications without effect other group of notifications, in an analogous art of managing the presentation of messages, Singla discloses: in accordance with a determination that the first user input is directed to a location that corresponds to the representation of the first notification in the first user interface object, performing a first operation with respect to the first notification, and forgoing performing the first operation with respect to the second notification; and in accordance with a determination that the first user input is directed to a location that corresponds to the representation of the second notification in the first user interface object, performing a second operation with respect to the second notification, and forgoing performing the second operation with respect to the first notification (Singla: [0007], the computing device may present separate summarized notification information for each group of notifications (e.g., first summarized notification information for a first group of reminder-type notifications for a particular user contact, and second summarized notification information for a second group of alert-type notifications for the particular user contact). As such, the computing device can present several summarizing interface elements in a contact list, with each summarizing interface element indicating aspects of a single group of notifications and being user selectable to cause the computing device to navigate to a display of the respective, single group of notifications);
Graham and Singla are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing the presentation of messages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Graham using the teachings of Singla to include separately applying summarizing interface element indicating aspects of a single group of notifications and cause the computing device to navigate to a display of the respective, single group of notifications. It would provide Graham’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to navigate groups of notifications with more flexibility.
As for claim 2, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a third notification of the plurality of notifications with third notification content, outside of the first user interface object (Graham: Fig. 5W, time-sensitive notifications).
As for claim 3, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein the third notification with the third notification content corresponds to a time span covered by notifications represented in the first user interface object, and the third notification is displayed outside of the first user interface object in accordance with a determination that the third notification content of the third notification does not meet the relevance criteria (Graham: Fig. 5W, time-sensitive notifications; please note time-sensitive notifications do not meet the relevance criteria).
As for claim 4, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: in accordance with a determination that the plurality of notifications includes a fourth notification with fourth notification content that does not meet the relevance criteria, forgoing displaying a representation of the fourth notification within the first user interface object, wherein the fourth notification is associated with a same application as least one of the first notification and the second notification (Dotan: [0050], if a message fails to satisfy the relevance threshold, the message relevance determiner 266 may tag the message as not relevant. In some embodiments, messages tagged as not relevant are clustered or grouped together and/or or hidden from the user (such as depicted at item 649 in FIG. 6). Similarly, sub-threads of messages tagged as not relevant may be clustered or grouped together (such as further described below with reference to FIG. 3) or may be hidden from the user).
As for claim 5, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: in accordance with a determination that the plurality of notifications includes a fifth notification with fifth notification content that does not meet the relevance criteria, forgoing displaying a representation of the fifth notification within the first user interface object, wherein the fifth notification is associated with a source of at least one of the first notification and the second notification (Dotan: [0050], if a message fails to satisfy the relevance threshold, the message relevance determiner 266 may tag the message as not relevant. In some embodiments, messages tagged as not relevant are clustered or grouped together and/or or hidden from the user (such as depicted at item 649 in FIG. 6). Similarly, sub-threads of messages tagged as not relevant may be clustered or grouped together (such as further described below with reference to FIG. 3) or may be hidden from the user).
As for claim 6, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: at a first time after the representation of the first notification and the representation of the second notification were concurrently displayed in the first user interface object in the first user interface, displaying the first user interface, including: in accordance with a determination that the first notification with the first notification content does not meet the relevance criteria at the first time, and that the second notification with the second notification content continues to meet the relevance criteria at the first time, displaying the representation of the second notification in the first user interface object without displaying the representation of the first notification in the first user interface object, in the first user interface (Dotan: [0050], if a message fails to satisfy the relevance threshold, the message relevance determiner 266 may tag the message as not relevant. In some embodiments, messages tagged as not relevant are clustered or grouped together and/or or hidden from the user (such as depicted at item 649 in FIG. 6). Similarly, sub-threads of messages tagged as not relevant may be clustered or grouped together (such as further described below with reference to FIG. 3) or may be hidden from the user; please note messages meeting relevance criteria are displayed and messages not meeting relevance criteria are hidden).
As for claim 7, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: at a second time after the representation of the first notification and the representation of the second notification were concurrently displayed in the first user interface object in the first user interface, displaying the first user interface, including: in accordance with a determination that a sixth notification with sixth notification content is available to be displayed in the first user interface and that the sixth notification meets the relevance criteria at the second time, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a representation of the sixth notification in the first user interface object, in the first user interface (Dotan: [0050], If the message satisfies the relevance threshold, the message relevance determiner 266 tags the message, or particular message feature(s) relied on for the relevance determination, as relevant with a type of relevance identifier; please note messages meeting relevance criteria are displayed).
As for claim 8, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein performing the first operation with respect to the first notification includes: in accordance with a determination that the first user input includes a selection input, displaying a first application corresponding to the first notification (Graham: [0045], a selection of an object).
As for claim 9, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein performing the first operation with respect to the first notification includes: in accordance with a determination that the first user input includes a respective type of input that is different from the selection input, displaying first additional notification content in an expanded version of the representation of the first notification, wherein the first additional notification content was not included in the representation of the first notification prior to detecting the first user input (Graham: [0270], the portable multifunction device displays an expanded view of the digest 7224. The expanded view of the digest 7224 optionally includes a “Collapse All” affordance 7256 (e.g., for collapsing the expanded view of the digest 7224 (e.g., to the version of the digest 7224 shown in FIG. 7T), or for dismissing the digest 7224), a notification 7260 (e.g., a messaging notification), and a plurality of indications of notification, such as an indication of notification 7268 (e.g., for a news application), and an indication of notification 7270 (e.g., for a TV application)).
As for claim 10, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein performing the first operation with respect to the first notification includes: in accordance with a determination that the first user input includes a first movement input, performing a respective operation of a plurality of operations associated with the first notification, wherein the respective operation is selected in accordance with one or more characteristics of the first movement input (Graham: [0056], detect contact and any movement or breaking thereof using any of a plurality of touch sensing technologies now known or later developed, including but not limited to capacitive, resistive, infrared, and surface acoustic wave technologies, as well as other proximity sensor arrays or other elements for determining one or more points of contact with touch-sensitive display system 112; [0068], determining an intensity of the contact (e.g., the force or pressure of the contact or a substitute for the force or pressure of the contact), determining if there is movement of the contact and tracking the movement across the touch-sensitive surface (e.g., detecting one or more finger-dragging events), and determining if the contact has ceased (e.g., detecting a finger-up event or a break in contact)).
As for claim 11, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein performing the respective operation of the plurality of operations associated with the first notification includes: in accordance with a determination that the first movement input meets first criteria, ceasing to display the representation of the first notification in the first user interface (Graham: [0070], a finger tap gesture can satisfy particular input criteria that do not require that the characteristic intensity of a contact satisfy a given intensity threshold in order for the particular input criteria to be met).
As for claim 12, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein performing the respective operation of the plurality of operations associated with the first notification includes: in accordance with a determination that the first movement input meets second criteria, displaying one or more selectable options that correspond to one or more operations associated with the first notification (Graham: [0071], a swipe gesture, a pinch gesture, a depinch gesture, and/or a long press gesture are optionally detected based on the satisfaction of criteria).
As for claim 16, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: while displaying the first user interface, including concurrently displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first notification and the representation of the second notification within the first user interface object, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second user input directed to the first user interface object; and in response to detecting the second user input directed to the first user interface object: in accordance with a determination that the second user input includes a second movement input that meets scroll criteria, moving the first user interface object as individual representations of notifications in the first user interface object, in a respective direction in accordance with the second movement input (Graham: [0140], contact movements such as taps, drags, scrolls, etc.; [0255], a list of applications that can be scrolled (e.g., by a swipe up by a user input 7098)).
As for claim 20, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein the relevance criteria are based on a current context of the computer system (Dotan: [0015], determining the relatedness of electronic messages, and presenting a visualized diagrammatic representation of the context of the email message within the group of related email messages (or other electronic message) to users).
As for claim 21, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein concurrently displaying the representation of the first notification and the representation of the second notification within the first user interface object includes arranging the representation of the first notification and the representation of the second notification in the first user interface object in accordance with an order determined in accordance with the relevance criteria (Dotan: [0078], the example embodiment of GUI 600 depicted in FIG. 6 depicts a portion of messages that are grouped together (in region 630, described below) in order to indicate a relationship, such as belonging to a message thread, and thus improves upon the conventional technologies for displaying messages).
As for claim 22, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein concurrently displaying the representation of the first notification that meets the relevance criteria and the representation of the second notification that meet the relevance criteria in the first user interface object includes: in accordance with a determination that more than a first threshold number of notifications (Graham: [0270], a predefined maximum number of stacked items) from the plurality of notifications available to be displayed in the first user interface meet the relevance criteria, displaying, concurrently with the first user interface object, a first indication that one or more additional notifications that meet the relevance criteria are available to be displayed; and in accordance with a determination that fewer than the first threshold number of notifications from the plurality of notifications available to be displayed in the first user interface meet the relevance criteria, forgoing displaying the first indication with the first user interface object (Graham: [0270], a predefined maximum number of stacked items; Dotan: [0050], if a message fails to satisfy the relevance threshold, the message relevance determiner 266 may tag the message as not relevant. In some embodiments, messages tagged as not relevant are clustered or grouped together and/or or hidden from the user (such as depicted at item 649 in FIG. 6). Similarly, sub-threads of messages tagged as not relevant may be clustered or grouped together (such as further described below with reference to FIG. 3) or may be hidden from the user; please note messages meeting relevance criteria are displayed and messages not meeting relevance criteria are hidden).
As for claim 23, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: detecting that a second set of conditions, different from the first set of conditions, for displaying the first user interface that corresponds to the restricted state of the computer system are met; and in response to detecting that the second set of conditions are met, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the first user interface that corresponds to the restricted state of the computer system, including: in accordance with a determination that the plurality of notifications available to be displayed in the first user interface includes a seventh notification that meets revised relevance criteria different from the relevance criteria, wherein the seventh notification does not meet the relevance criteria, displaying a representation of the seventh notification in the first user interface object (Graham: [0268], a portion 7230 that provides indications for a news application and a TV application (e.g., for notifications that the portable multifunction device 100 determines are more likely to be relevant to a user (e.g., based on a history of user interaction with different types of applications)), and a “More Updates” portion that includes indications for other applications (e.g., for notifications that the portable multifunction device 100 determines are less relevant to the user (e.g., as compared to the indications for notifications in the portion 7230); Dotan: Abstract, For the first electronic message, and any determined related electronic messages, a diagrammatic representation of the determined relationship of the first electronic message to the previously received electronic messages is generated for presentation on the user device, as well as identifiers indicating message relevance, message changes, and/or identification and presentation of any relevant supplemental information; [0023], collecting user data; determining message features, analyzing message relatedness, message changes, message relevance and identifying supplemental information, monitoring user activity and events, user preferences, context data, or related information; and/or presenting an enhanced message display and related content to users; [0054], the changes determined by change identifier 264 (an in particular changes that include information relevant to a user) may summarized or extracted so that they may be highlighted for the user; [0073], As described above with relevance, one of more of the message features identified as new or changing may be used to generate a summary of change for presentation to the user; [0074], Embodiments of block 570 generate a summary, which may be personalized to the user and may include an identifier of relevance, change, and/or supplemental information determined in block 565).
As for claim 24, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein concurrently displaying the representation of the first notification and the representation of the second notification within the first user interface object includes arranging the representation of the first notification and the representation of the second notification in the first user interface object in accordance with relative relevancy of the first notification and the second notification (Dotan: [0078], the example embodiment of GUI 600 depicted in FIG. 6 depicts a portion of messages that are grouped together (in region 630, described below) in order to indicate a relationship, such as belonging to a message thread, and thus improves upon the conventional technologies for displaying messages; please note the notifications are displayed in the order of relevance, that is, the more relevant message is displayed at top).
As for claim 25, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein displaying the first user interface in response to detecting that the first set of conditions are met, includes: in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more notifications from the plurality of notifications have higher relevance than notifications included in the first user interface object based on the relevance criteria, displaying the first set of one or more notifications on a first side of the first user interface object outside of the first user interface object; and
in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more notifications from the plurality of notifications have lower relevance than the notifications included in the first user interface object based on the relevance criteria, displaying the second set of one or more notifications on a second side of the first user interface object, different from the first side of the first user interface object, outside of the first user interface object (Dotan: [0078], the example embodiment of GUI 600 depicted in FIG. 6 depicts a portion of messages that are grouped together (in region 630, described below) in order to indicate a relationship, such as belonging to a message thread, and thus improves upon the conventional technologies for displaying messages; please note the notifications are displayed in the order of relevance).
As for claim 26, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein displaying the first user interface in response to detecting that the first set of conditions are met, includes: displaying a second user interface object that corresponds to a first ongoing activity, concurrently with the first user interface object, wherein:
the first ongoing activity generates a plurality of updates over time, and
displaying the second user interface objects include displaying first updated content in the second user interface object in accordance with a first update of the plurality of updates at a first time, and displaying second updated content in the second user interface object in accordance with a second update of the plurality of updates at a second time later than the first time (Graham: [0131], Event comparator 184 compares the event information to predefined event or sub-event definitions and, based on the comparison, determines an event or sub-event, or determines or updates the state of an event or sub-event; Dotan: Abstract, For the first electronic message, and any determined related electronic messages, a diagrammatic representation of the determined relationship of the first electronic message to the previously received electronic messages is generated for presentation on the user device, as well as identifiers indicating message relevance, message changes, and/or identification and presentation of any relevant supplemental information).
As for claim 27, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: displaying the first user interface, including: in accordance with a determination that display of the first user interface object in the first user interface is enabled, displaying the first user interface object in the first user interface, including representations of notifications that meet the relevance criteria; and in accordance with a determination that display of the first user interface object in the first user interface is disabled, forgoing displaying the first user interface object in the first user interface, without regard to whether or not one or more notifications that meet the relevance criteria are available for display (Graham: [0223], changing the toggle state of the toggle 5204 (e.g., enabling or disabling the “Time-Sensitive Notifications” option 5202) changes the toggle state of the toggle 5128 (e.g., enables or disables the “Time-Sensitive Notifications” option 5126 of settings interface 5120, shown in FIG. 5R-2) to match the toggle state of the toggle 5204 (e.g., the “Time Sensitive Notifications” option 5126 and the “Time-Sensitive Notifications” option 5202 are the same option, but can be configured from different places in the settings user interface; [0317], the settings interface for each activity mode of the plurality of activity modes includes an option to enable or disable display of the indication while the respective activity mode is active).
As for claim 28, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: displaying the first user interface object, including: in accordance with a determination that a first setting that enables notifications for a first application to be included in the first user interface object, is activated, displaying a representation of a respective notification of the first application in accordance with a determination that the respective notification of the first application meets the relevance criteria; and
in accordance with a determination that the first setting that enables notifications for the first application to be included in the first user interface object, is deactivated, forgoing displaying the representation of the respective notification of the first application without regard to whether or not the respective notification of the first application meets the relevance criteria (Graham: [0223], changing the toggle state of the toggle 5204 (e.g., enabling or disabling the “Time-Sensitive Notifications” option 5202) changes the toggle state of the toggle 5128 (e.g., enables or disables the “Time-Sensitive Notifications” option 5126 of settings interface 5120, shown in FIG. 5R-2) to match the toggle state of the toggle 5204 (e.g., the “Time Sensitive Notifications” option 5126 and the “Time-Sensitive Notifications” option 5202 are the same option, but can be configured from different places in the settings user interface; [0317], the settings interface for each activity mode of the plurality of activity modes includes an option to enable or disable display of the indication while the respective activity mode is active).
As for claim 29, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein the representation of the first notification includes a first automatically generated summary that is based on the first notification content of the first notification (Graham: [0264], the resulting user interface includes text 7171, which provides a brief summary of bundled notifications).
As for claim 30, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: the representation of the second notification includes the second notification content of the second notification, without including an automatically generated summary that is based on the second notification content of the first notification; and the method includes:
displaying a first visual indication that visually distinguishes the representation of the first notification from the representation of the second notification, in a manner that representations of one or more notifications that include automatically generated summaries are visually distinguished in the first user interface from representations of one or more other notifications that do not include automatically generated summaries (Graham: [0268], the indications in the portion 7230 are displayed with a greater prominence (e.g., with more detail, with more content, etc.); [0355], where the notification 7232 and the notification 7234 are displayed with a greater prominence (e.g., a larger size) than indications of events meeting lower importance criteria; [0389], levels of prominence are implemented using font size, font color, bolding, underlining, and/or other font characteristics; Dotan: [0064], the message 300 is now represented by email icon 314C which can be highlighted in some fashion to indicate it is the message 300; [0075], a region or area of the GUI encompassing the related messages (or message indicator(s) corresponding to related messages) that is separated or distinguished from a region of the GUI for presenting unrelated messages (or message indicators corresponding to the unrelated messages); or a grouping of the related messages (or indicators corresponding to the related messages) in proximity to each other or otherwise distinguished from unrelated messages (or message indicators corresponding to the unrelated messages); [0066], some form of highlighting (such as bold text, colored text, or other indicators) may be used to indicate why the message, or portion of the message, was determined to be relevant; [0079], from distinguishing region 630 from other regions of GUI 600, such as by a border line 649 (or a color, shading, or other GUI element suitable for indicating a region boundary)).
As for claim 31, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: displaying the first user interface object includes concurrently displaying a representation of a first group of related notifications that meet the relevance criteria, and a representation of an individual notification that meets the relevance criteria; and the method includes:
displaying a second visual indication indicating that the representation of the first group of notifications represents multiple related notifications, and the representation of the individual notification represents a single notification (Graham: [0268], the indications in the portion 7230 are displayed with a greater prominence (e.g., with more detail, with more content, etc.); [0355], where the notification 7232 and the notification 7234 are displayed with a greater prominence (e.g., a larger size) than indications of events meeting lower importance criteria; [0389], levels of prominence are implemented using font size, font color, bolding, underlining, and/or other font characteristics).
As for claim 32, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: while displaying the first user interface, including the first user interface object, detecting availability of a new notification other than the plurality of notifications at the computer system; and
in response to detecting the availability of the new notification: displaying a respective animated visual effect in the first user interface in accordance with whether notification content of the new notification meets the relevance criteria (Graham: [0202], displays an animation (e.g., as indicated by the dotted outline 5102) associated with the message 5084 (e.g., the message 5084 jiggles, and/or the message 5084 changes size, and/or the message 5084 is tilted and/or rotated, etc.); [0316], a message bubble for the first communication, as shown in the messaging user interface of the sender, is animated (e.g., jiggles, and/or its size oscillates, or it is animated in another manner)).
As for claim 33, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein displaying the respective animated visual effect in the first user interface object includes: in accordance with a determination that the new notification meets the relevance criteria, displaying a first animated visual effect showing a representation of the new notification merging into the first user interface object (Graham: [0202], displays an animation (e.g., as indicated by the dotted outline 5102) associated with the message 5084 (e.g., the message 5084 jiggles, and/or the message 5084 changes size, and/or the message 5084 is tilted and/or rotated, etc.); [0316], a message bubble for the first communication, as shown in the messaging user interface of the sender, is animated (e.g., jiggles, and/or its size oscillates, or it is animated in another manner)).
As for claim 34, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein displaying the respective animated visual effect in the first user interface object includes: in accordance with a determination that the new notification meets the relevance criteria, reducing visual prominence of representations of notifications in the first user interface object, relative to the representation of the new notification, before merging the representation of the new notification into the first user interface object (Graham: [0202], displays an animation (e.g., as indicated by the dotted outline 5102) associated with the message 5084 (e.g., the message 5084 jiggles, and/or the message 5084 changes size, and/or the message 5084 is tilted and/or rotated, etc.); [0316], a message bubble for the first communication, as shown in the messaging user interface of the sender, is animated (e.g., jiggles, and/or its size oscillates, or it is animated in another manner)).
As for claim 35, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein displaying the respective animated visual effect in the first user interface object includes:
in accordance with a determination that the new notification does not meet the relevance criteria, displaying a second animated visual effect showing the new notification joining a subset of the plurality of notifications that do not meet the relevance criteria in the first user interface.
As for claim 36, Graham-Dotan-Singla discloses: wherein displaying the respective animated visual effect in the first user interface object includes:
in accordance with the determination that the new notification does not meet the relevance criteria, displaying animated movement of the first user interface object over the subset of the plurality of notifications in the first user interface, after the new notification has joined the subset of the plurality of notifications that do not meet the relevance criteria.
As per claim 37, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 38, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
4. Claims 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham. Dotan, Singla as applied on claim 1, and further in view of David Yan et al (US Publication 20150186369 A1, hereinafter Yan).
As for claim 13, Graham-Dotan-Singla does not clearly disclose changing the shape of the object by user input, Yan discloses: in response to detecting the first user input:
in accordance with a determination that the first user input includes the first movement input, changing a shape of the first user interface object in accordance with the first movement input (Yan: [0118], a user may be able to interact with the overlay 840 to resize the overlay itself and/or the previewed files displayed within the overlay 840).
Graham and Yan are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing the presentation of messages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Graham using the teachings of Yan to include allowing user to resize an object by user input. It would provide Graham’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to navigate groups of notifications with more flexibility.
As for claim 17, Graham-Dotan-Singla-Yan discloses: in response to detecting the second user input directed to the first user interface object: in accordance with the determination that the second user input includes the second movement input that meets the scroll criteria, changing a shape of the first user interface object in accordance with the second movement input (Yan: [0108], Groups can change behavior, trajectory, color, and shape while a user moves a pointer or finger, types a search query, gets search results, moves items, scrolls through lists, or does other actions).
5. Claims 14, 15, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham. Dotan, Singla, Yan as applied on claims 13 and 17, and further in view of Christopher Blair (US Publication 20140096033 A1, hereinafter Blair).
As for claim 14, Graham-Dotan-Singla-Yan does not clearly disclose splitting the object, Blair discloses: in response to detecting the first user input: in accordance with a determination that the first movement input meets a first movement threshold, splitting the first user interface object into individual representations of notifications, including an individual representation of the first notification and an individual representation of the second notification (Blair: [0330], The scissors control (95) on FIG. 15 allows the user to manually split the recording of an active call).
Graham and Blair are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, managing the presentation of messages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Graham using the teachings of Blair to include allowing user to split an object by user input. It would provide Graham’s method with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to navigate groups of notifications with more flexibility.
As for claim 15, Graham-Dotan-Singla-Yan-Blair discloses: detecting a termination of the first user input, including detecting a termination of the first movement input; and in response to detecting the termination of the first user input: in accordance with a determination that the first movement input did not meet the first movement threshold prior to the termination of the first movement input, reversing at least a portion of a change in the shape of the first user interface object that was made in response to the first movement input (Graham: [0068], determining if the contact has ceased (e.g., detecting a finger-up event or a break in contact; [0187], in response to detecting a user input 5044 at a location away from the affordances included in the first user interface, the portable multifunction device 100 ceases displaying the first user interface (e.g., and resumes displaying the user interface displayed immediately prior to the first user interface); please note determining the movement has ceased may cancel the previous operation).
As for claim 18, Graham-Dotan-Singla-Yan-Blair discloses: in response to detecting the second user input directed to the first user interface object: in accordance with the determination that the second user input includes the second movement input that meets the scroll criteria, and that the second movement input meets a second movement threshold, splitting the first user interface object into the individual representations of notifications (Blair: [0330], The scissors control (95) on FIG. 15 allows the user to manually split the recording of an active call).
As for claim 19, Graham-Dotan-Singla-Yan-Blair discloses: detecting a termination of the second user input, including detecting a termination of the second movement input; and in response to detecting the termination of the second user input:
in accordance with a determination that the second movement input did not meet the second movement threshold prior to the termination of the second movement input, reversing at least a portion of a change in the shape of the first user interface object that was made in response to the second movement input (Graham: [0068], determining if the contact has ceased (e.g., detecting a finger-up event or a break in contact; [0187], in response to detecting a user input 5044 at a location away from the affordances included in the first user interface, the portable multifunction device 100 ceases displaying the first user interface (e.g., and resumes displaying the user interface displayed immediately prior to the first user interface); please note determining the movement has ceased may cancel the previous operation).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Tanikella (US Publication 20230376515) GENERATING SUMMARY DOCUMENTS FOR COMMUNICATIONS IN A COMMUNICATION PLATFORM
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights