DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 26 November 2024, the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 13 March 2025, and the preliminary amendment filed on 3 March 2026.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 1, 25, and 26 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/13/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/26/24 have entered and accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 3/3/26 has been entered and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 12, 20-21, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Longo et al (US11848084, 12/19/2023)
As per independent claim 1, Longo et al discloses an electronic device (Abstract), comprising:
a display generation component; (Abstract; FIG 9A-9C; Col 22, ll. 5-16; Col 23, ll. 5-6, : Discloses a computer system that discloses a user interface displayed/presented to a user. A skilled artisan would have realized that a monitor or a display screen was used in order for the interface to be presented to the user)
one or more processors; (claim 1)
memory; and (Claim 1)
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (Col 25, ll. 46-55)
displaying, via the display generation component, a first user interface including a first set of one or more displayed user interface objects; (Abstract; FIG 9A-C; Col 22, ll. 14-16; Col 22, ll. 66- Col 23, ll. 16: user interface with text boxes/field are presented/displayed)
while displaying the first user interface including the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects, receiving a first user request; (FIG 9B; Col 3, ll. 26-27; Col 23, 4-6; Claim 5: User selects a text field to enter data )
and in response to receiving the first user request, generating a first response, wherein generating the first response includes: causing performance of a first action; (Col 3, ll. 26-27; 38-47; Col 17, ll. 7-20; Col. 21, ll. 35-37; Col 22, ll. 18-31; Col 23, ll. 24-32: In response to selecting the text field, text is entered and determines if the entered text satisfies the field validation rule(s) )
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface does not satisfy a set of one or more suppression criteria, displaying, via the display generation component, an additional visual output representing the performance of the first action; (Col 3, ll. 38-47; Col 17, ll. 7-20; Col. 21, ll. 35-37; Col 22, ll. 18-31; Col 23, ll. 24-32: Determines that the entered text does not meet the field validation rules and displays an error message and request the user for new text)
in accordance with a determination that the first user interface satisfies the set of one or more suppression criteria, foregoing displaying the additional visual output representing the performance of the first action, (Col 3, ll. 38-47; Col 17, ll. 7-20; Col. 21, ll. 35-37; Col 22, ll. 18-31; Col 23, ll. 24-32: Determines that the entered text does meet the field validation rules; thus, no additional data is displayed)
wherein the set of one or more suppression criteria includes a first criterion that is satisfied when the performance of the first action includes updating a display state of at least a first user interface object included in the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects. (Col 3, ll. 38-47; Col 17, ll. 7-20; Col. 21, ll. 35-37; Col 22, ll. 18-31; Col 23, ll. 24-32: Text being entered into the text box being displayed and validated is a form of changed the display state)
As per dependent claim 2, Longo et al discloses generating the additional visual output representing the performance of the first action. (Col 3, ll. 38-47; Col 17, ll. 7-20; Col. 21, ll. 35-37; Col 22, ll. 18-31; Col 23, ll. 24-32)
As per dependent claim 10, Longo et al discloses the first user interface object includes a selectable user interface object for controlling the first action. (Col 3, ll. 26-27; Claim 5: text boxes/fields are entered with data, a form of a selectable object)
As per dependent claim 12, Longo et al discloses wherein the first user interface object includes an input field for a result of the performance of the first action. (Col 3, ll. 26-27; Claim 5: text boxes/fields are entered with data, a form of a input field)
As per dependent clam 20, Longo et al discloses determining whether the set of one or more suppression criteria is satisfied. (Col 3, ll. 38-47; Col 17, ll. 7-20; Col. 21, ll. 35-37; Col 22, ll. 18-31; Col 23, ll. 24-32: Determines that the entered text does meet the field validation rules)
As per dependent claim 21, Longo et al discloses wherein determining whether the set of one or more suppression criteria is satisfied includes: obtaining a representation of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects, wherein determining whether the set of one or more suppression criteria is satisfied is based on the representation of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects.( FIG 9B; Col 3, ll. 38-47; Col 17, ll. 7-20; Col. 21, ll. 35-37; Col 22, ll. 18-31; Col 23, ll. 24-32: The text field comprising the input data is a form of a representation of the first set of the one or more UI objects. For example, Longo et al discloses if the representation (the text input of the field) does not meet the validation rules, then the criteria is not satisfied. If the representation (the text input of the field) does meet the validation rules, then the criteria is satisfied)
As per independent claims 25-26, Claims 25-26 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Longo et al discloses a medium (Col 25, 22-37)
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) 3, 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Gaither et al (US20170192950, 2017)
As per dependent claim 3, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein generating the first response is performed at least in part by a digital assistant system. However, Gaither et al discloses a digital assistant system assisting with filling in fields of a form. (0033, 0062)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Gaither et al since it would have provided the benefit of assisting users with the use of electronic forms on electronic devices by providing a simplified user experience. (0002, 0018)
As per dependent claim 4, Longo et al disclose wherein causing performance of the first action includes: causing a first application, different from the digital assistant system, to perform the first action. (Col. 24, ll. 67 – Col 25, ll. 2). Furthermore, Gaither discloses application that allows the user to input information and interact with the form (0044)
As per dependent claim 24, the cited art fails to specifically disclose generating the first response includes determining, based on the first user request, an intent corresponding to the first action; and determining whether the set of one or more suppression criteria is satisfied includes comparing the intent corresponding to the first action to the representation of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects. However, Gaither discloses generating the first response includes determining, based on the first user request, an intent corresponding to the first action; and determining whether the set of one or more suppression criteria is satisfied includes comparing the intent corresponding to the first action to the representation of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects. (0064 discloses the form workflow assistant 121 sends a message asking the user for his or her Social Security number. If the user responds with a text answer, that answer is invalidated because a numeric answer is expected. The user is then asked again for the Social Security number. If the user responds with a numeric answer, the Social Security number field is populated with the different numbers (or, the last four digitals of the Social Security number are only used rather for security reasons and personal privacy). The guided presentation proceeds to the last field. In other words, the workflow assistant discloses determining the intent of filling in a form field based on the user’s input and determines if the input is entered correctly (checking validation rules). If the input meets the validation rules (passes validation) then it considered satisfied. Thus, Gaither discloses determining and comparing the intent based on the language as claimed.)
Claim(s) 5-7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Larcheveque et al (US20040226002, 2004)
As per dependent claim 5, the cited art fails to disclose wherein displaying the additional visual output includes displaying a second user interface different from the first user interface. However, Larcheveque et al discloses displaying the additional visual output includes displaying a second user interface different from the first user interface (FIG 6-7; 0075, 0080-0081: Discloses a pop up alert overlaying the form. The pop up is a form of a second user interface that appears over the form (first user interface)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Larcheveque et al since the display of the pop up alert would have provided the benefit of informing the user that the error is important and must be fixed and stops the user mentally, helping the user to notice that he must fix the data-entry field having the error before proceeding. (0081)
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to disclose while displaying the second user interface, continuing displaying at least a portion of the first user interface. However, based on the rejection of claim 5 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Larcheveque et al discloses while displaying the second user interface, continuing displaying at least a portion of the first user interface. (FIG 6-7; 0075, 0080-0081Discloses a pop up alert overlaying the form. The pop up is a form of a second user interface that appears over the form (first user interface). The form/first user interface is still displayed)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to disclose wherein the second user interface includes a description of the first action. However, based on the rejection of claim 5 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Larcheveque et al discloses while displaying the second user interface, continuing displaying at least a portion of the first user interface. (0082)
As per independent claim 11, the cited art fails to disclose wherein the first user interface object includes a status indicator that indicates a result of the performance of the first action. However, based on the rejection of claim 5 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Larcheveque et al wherein the first user interface object includes a status indicator that indicates a result of the performance of the first action. (0091: shows the status indicating the field is invalid with red lined box around it)
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of in further view of Larcheveque et al in further view of Bhupati et al (US20240378396, EFD 5/8/2023)
As per dependent claim 8, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the second user interface is associated with a digital assistant system. However, Bhupati et al discloses the second user interface is associated with a digital assistant system. (0018, 0057-0059; FIG 5 (511, 512): based on what the user has entered, a prompt is displayed in response by the LLM)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Bhupati et al since the display of the pop up alert would have provided the benefit of a streamlined interface by which the application or application service determines when to generate a prompt for the LLM and configures the prompt to include the identified content and the identified context (0029)
Claim(s) 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Bhupati et al
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein displaying the additional visual output representing the performance of the first action includes: ceasing displaying the first user interface; and displaying, via the display generation component, a third user interface. However, Bhupati et al discloses wherein displaying the additional visual output representing the performance of the first action includes: ceasing displaying the first user interface; and displaying, via the display generation component, a third user interface. (FIG 5; 0057-0060: Discloses the interface of 511 is modified to become the interface of 515 that includes more text objects. Modifying the interface results in a new interface being generated.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Bhupati et al since the display of the pop up alert would have provided the benefit of a streamlined interface by which the application or application service determines when to generate a prompt for the LLM and configures the prompt to include the identified content and the identified context (0029)
As per dependent claim 13, the cited art fails to disclose causing the performance of the first action includes causing a second application to perform the first action; and the first user interface object includes a respective user interface object of the second application. However, based on the rejection of claim 5 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Bhupati et al discloses causing the performance of the first action includes causing a second application to perform the first action; and the first user interface object includes a respective user interface object of the second application. (FIG 5; 0057-0060: From 511 to 515 shows a first application having a first interface having content (first interface object) and a second application that analyzes the content and performing an action based on the content such as modifying the content of the first application. The content of the first interface of the first application is modified to include content of the second application. (respective user interface object)
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Davis et al (US20160246478, 2016)
As per dependent claim 14, Longo et al discloses a first subset of a first set if one or more displayed UI objects. (Col 3, ll. 26-27; Claim 5; FIG 9A) However, the cited art fails to specifically discloses wherein the set of one or more suppression criteria includes a population criterion that is satisfied when a first subset of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects includes fewer than a threshold number of user interface objects, wherein the first subset of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects does not include the first user interface object. However, Davis et al discloses if the number of UI icons is greater or less than the maximum number of UI icons that can fit in a particular area. If the number of UI icons is less than maximum number of UI icons, then all the UI icons can fit in the area. If the number is greater, then only a certain number are displayed in the area. Furthermore, other UI elements/objects are displayed in different area (FIG 2; 0024, 0042)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Davis et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide a convenient panel displaying method of an adjustable panel arrangement of the portable electronic device that changes in correspondence with the user's circumstances, making the portable electronic device convenient to use (0006)
As per dependent claim 15, Longo et al discloses the first subset of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects does not include a second subset of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects, wherein the second subset of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects correspond to the first action. (FIG 9B; Col 23, lines 24-30: Discloses a field that corresponds to a first action such that user text is entered and determine if the field meets the validation rules. This UI object is viewed a second subset while FIG 9B discloses multiple UI objects that includes a first subset.) Furthermore, Davis et al discloses second subset of UI objects (FIG 2; 0024, 0042)
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Paul et al (US20220337741, 2022)
As per dependent claim 16, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the set of one or more suppression criteria includes a prominence criterion that is satisfied when the first user interface object is displayed with greater than a threshold visual prominence. However, Paul et al discloses the set of one or more suppression criteria includes a prominence criterion that is satisfied when the first user interface object is displayed with greater than a threshold visual prominence. (0240, 0290, 0399: discloses an UI text object that satisfies the set of visual prominence criteria because the text of the email is above the threshold size and occupies more than a threshold portion of live preview/space)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Paul et al since it would have provided the benefit of electronic devices with faster, more efficient methods and interfaces for managing visual content in media. (0005)
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Amay (“Introducing the Spotify Miniplayer to SpotifyDesktop”, 3/21/2024, 15 pages)
As per dependent claim 17, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the set of one or more suppression criteria includes a user interface criterion that is satisfied when the first user interface is associated with a respective rank in a user interface hierarchy for the first action. However, in summary, Amay shows a hierarchy of different modes of a user interfaces that includes a miniplayer mode and a full screen mode. The miniplayer mode comprises basic controls when compared to the full screen mode such that not all the UI features are presented. (pg 3) The reduction of UI features in the miniplayer mode is a form of a priority/ranking selection since only the main/important are selected to be incorporated in the miniplayer mode. In addition, the user can choose the mode/level of a hierarchy/mode that is satisfying to their criteria. (pg 1-4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Amay since it would have provided the benefit of giving the user maximum control over their music and podcasts with minimal intrusion, ensuring the workflow goes undisturbed.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Harijan et al (US 20200356587, 2020)
As per dependent claim 18, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the set of one or more suppression criteria includes a confidence criterion that is satisfied when a confidence level of the first response exceeds a threshold response confidence. However, Harijan et al discloses the set of one or more suppression criteria includes a confidence criterion that is satisfied when a confidence level of the first response exceeds a threshold response confidence. (Discloses determining a relevance score for the data entered into a text entry field. Once determined, it compares the score to a relevance score threshold to determine if the correct text was entered. If the wrong text was entered, a message pops up)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Harijan et al since it would have provided a system and processes to prevent a message from being sent to an unintended recipient by determining if the reply is a better fit in another conversation. (0008)
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Kanubaddi (US20180158549, 2018)
As per dependent claim 19, Longo et al disclose an output if the text does not meet the one or more field validation rules. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose providing a response output that is different from the additional visual output. However, Kanubaddi discloses providing a response output that is different from the additional visual output (FIG. 6; 0047: Discloses if the inputted text meets the validation rules of the field (valid input), then a checkmark appears next to that field)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Kanubaddi since it would have provided the instrinic advantage of giving users instant visual proof that their input is correct and complete.
Claim(s) 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al in further view of Francis (US20040172622)
As per dependent claim 22 and 23, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the representation of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects includes a first set of identifiers of the first set of one or more displayed user interface object and display configuration information for the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects. However, Franics discloses wherein the representation of the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects includes a first set of identifiers of the first set of one or more displayed user interface object and display configuration information for the first set of one or more displayed user interface objects. (FIG 4B; 0029, 0031-0032, 0041: Disclose each of the fields have displayed text identifiers and the fields are linked to configuration settings of a software application/ email secure content management appliance)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the disclosed cited feature(s) of Francis since it would have provided the benefit of allowing a user to perform tasks such as configuring the application using the same displays presented during normal operation, the content of the displays of the software application can be organized independent of the user-supplied data required to configure and thereafter operate the application (0005)
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights