DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to for the following:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-4, 6, 10-13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gatlin, Kevin L. (US 2022/0038573 A1).
As in Claim 1, Gatlin teaches a card management method, comprising:
displaying a search interface (FIGS. 15-17, pars. 150-152, the device displays a search interface, such as a search radius screen 1200, including a search frame 1201 and the radius frame 1204);
receiving a search word in the search interface (FIGS. 15-17, pars. 150-152, the device receives one or more search words in the search interface, such as “Fast Food Restaurants”);
performing a search based on the search word, and displaying P search results (FIG. 18, pars. 153-154, the device displays a list of fast food restaurant applications 1603 (i.e., 1604-1615) as search results based on the received the word(s));
detecting a first operation of selecting Q search results from the P search results, wherein P is greater than or equal to Q, and P and Q are positive integers (FIG. 18, pars. 153-154, the user may drag one or more applications from the list of fast food restaurant application 1603 to the Favorites/Apps Grouping 601); and
generating, based on the Q search results, a combined card comprising at least one display element (FIG. 18, pars. 153-154, the dragged application(s) can be added to the Favorites/Apps Grouping 601; further see pars. 20-24).
As in Claim 2, Gatlin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Gatlin further teaches displaying a to-be-edited combined card in a first area of a first interface and displaying an X display element in a second area of the first interface (FIG. 18, pars. 153-154, the list of applications 1603 is displayed in areas/locations of the search interface. The user may select any applications 1603 and drag the selected application(s) to another locations; further see pars. 20-24);
wherein the to-be-edited combined card is based on the Q search results (FIG. 18, pars. 153-154, the Favorites/Apps Grouping 601 presents the newly added application (e.g., Crazy Taco 1610 ) under the Favorites/Apps Grouping 601).
As in Claim 3, Gatlin teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Gatlin further teaches receiving a second operation for selecting a Y display element displayed in the second area (FIG. 18, pars. 153-154, the user may select any applications 1603 located in an area/location of the search interface; further see pars. 20-24).
As in Claim 4, Gatlin teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Gatlin further teaches that the generating, based on the Q search results, the combined card comprising at least one display element comprises:
generating, based on the Q search results and the Y display element, the combined card (FIG. 18, pars. 153-154, the Favorites/Apps Grouping 601 presents the newly added application(s) under the Favorites/Apps Grouping 601).
As in Claim 6, Gatlin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Gatlin further teaches displaying the generated combined card on the home screen (see at least FIGS. 6-7 and 12-17, pars. 36, 58-59, 109-112, 148, the device displays the Favorites/Apps Grouping 601 on a home screen 615).
Claims 10 and 19 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
4. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatlin et al. (US 2005/0166159 A1) in view of Hancock, Owen (US 2019/0114308 A1).
As in Claim 5, Gatlin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Gatlin does not teach that wherein the first interface further comprises a first control that is used to adjust a size of the combined card; and the method further comprises: detecting a second operation on the first control; and adjusting a size of the to-be-edited combined card in response to the second operation.
However, in the same field of the invention, Hancock teaches that the first interface further comprises a first control that is used to adjust a size of the combined card (FIGS. 6A-6B, pars. 115-117, the group handles 618 can be used to adjust a size of the content item group 506); and
the method further comprises:
detecting a second operation on the first control (FIGS. 6A-6B, pars. 115-117, the user can control the group handles 618); and
adjusting a size of the to-be-edited combined card in response to the second operation ( FIGS. 6A-6B, pars. 115-117, the size of the content item group 506 can be adjusted by controlling the group handles 618 ).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for grouping the application icons from the icons of the search results, as taught by Gatlin, and to provide the way to adjust the size of the content item group, as taught by Hancock. The motivation is to allow proportional resizing of grouped content by controlling the grouped handles.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatlin et al. (US 2005/0166159 A1) in view of Fisher et al. (US 2007/0074126 A1).
As in Claim 7, Gatlin teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Gatlin does not teach detecting a removal operation on the first display element; and in response to the removal operation, removing the first display element displayed in the combined card.
However, in the same field of the invention, Fisher teaches detecting a removal operation on the first display element (FIGS. 4B-4C, 5-6, pars. 48-50, 51-52, parts/widgets (par. 30) can be added to or removed from the part picker 414); and
in response to the removal operation, removing the first display element displayed in the combined card (FIGS. 4B-4C, pars. 48-50, 51-52, the user can select a desired part from the part picker 414 and move to the sidebar).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for grouping the application icons from the icons of the search results, as taught by Gatlin, and to provide the way to remove the parts/widgets from the grouped parts (i.e., part picker 414), as taught by Fisher. The motivation is to allow users to easily add or remove parts from the part picker by dragging and dropping them.
As in Claim 8, Gatlin-Fisher teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Gatlin-Fisher further teaches that the removal operation on the first display element comprises:
dragging the first display element out of a third area that displays the combined card (Fisher, FIGS. 4B-4C, 5-6, pars. 48-50, 51-52, the user can drag the selected part and move it to other locations (e.g., sidebar)).
As in Claim 9, Gatlin-Fisher teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Gatlin-Fisher further teaches that the home screen further comprises a second display element (Fisher, FIGS. 4B-4C, 5-6, pars. 48-50, 51-52, see the rejection of claim 7), wherein the method further comprises:
detecting an addition operation on the second display element (Fisher, FIGS. 4B-4C, 5-6, pars. 48-50, 51-52, see the rejection of claim 7);and
in response to the addition operation, displaying a combined card comprising the second display element (Fisher, FIGS. 4B-4C, 5-6, pars. 48-50, 51-52, see the rejection of claim 7).
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 7 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 9 and rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights