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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kernick et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0049128 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Kernick teaches:
an electronic device, comprising: memory storing one or more computer programs; a display; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: display, on the display, an execution screen of an application including state information about deletion target data of a plurality of applications installed on the electronic device, the execution screen including a first object requesting to delete the deletion target data, (Kernick illustrates [FIG. 3A, FIG. 3B, FIG 4A] a display with state information which includes files and applications that have been identified for deletion, along with request to delete target data, wherein target data is inclusive of a request to uninstall an application.)
transmit a command to each of the plurality of applications to delete the deletion target data of the plurality of applications based on a user input to the first object, (Kernick teaches [0038] sending deletion commands based on user input.)
when first deletion target data of a first application among the plurality of applications is stored in a first area accessible by the first application, display information about a deletion result of the first deletion target data, (Kernick teaches [0028] deletion criteria configured via user input into a GUI, wherein criteria is inclusive of deletion results.)
and when second deletion target data of a second application among the plurality of applications is stored in a second area requiring an access authority, display information requesting a deletion authority of the second deletion target data (Kernick teaches [0023] access rights and user permissions for deletion services to target data.)
As per Claim 2, Kernick teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, when the second deletion target data of the second application among the plurality of applications is stored in the second area requiring the access authority and when the second application does not have the access authority to the second area, display a popup window as to whether to grant the access authority on the display (Kernick [0023] teaches a space for determining user permissions and access.)
As per Claim 3, Kernick teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to transmit a command for deleting the second deletion target data to the second application based on a user input to grant the access authority (Kernick teaches [0027] user input criteria for determining deletion of candidate data.)
As per Claim 4, Kernick teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, when the second application fails to obtain an authority for accessing the second area, display, on the display, information indicating a failure to delete the second deletion target data (Kernick teaches [0027, 0095] user input criteria for determining deletion of candidate data.)
As per Claim 5, Kernick teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: if the first deletion target data is deleted, transmit a command indicating that the first deletion target data is deleted to the application; and update and display state information about the first deletion target data displayed on an execution screen of the application (Kernick illustrates [FIG. 3A, FIG. 3B, FIG 4A] a display with state information which includes files and applications that have been identified for deletion, along with request to delete target data, wherein target data is inclusive of a request to uninstall an application.) (Kernick teaches [0038] sending deletion commands based on user input.)
As per Claim 6, Kernick teaches:
wherein the execution screen includes a second object requesting to generate a shortcut icon for the first object, and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to display, on the display, a shortcut icon for the first object based on a user input to the second object (Kernick [0048])
As per Claim 7, Kernick teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to display the shortcut icon for the first object on the display to be visually distinct depending on degrees of deletion of the first deletion target data and the second deletion target data (Kernick [0048])
As per Claim 8, Kernick teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, if the first deletion target data and the second deletion target data are deleted, deactivate the shortcut icon for the first object (Kernick [0048])
As per Claim 9, Kernick teaches:
wherein the execution screen further includes a third object for adding a shortcut icon related to the first application and a fourth object for adding a shortcut icon related to the second application, and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to transmit a command to the first application and/or the second application to delete the first deletion target data and/or the second deletion target data based on a user input to the shortcut icon related to the first application and/or the second application (Kernick [0048])
As per Claim 10, Kernick teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to display a widget on the display based on a user input for adding the widget, and wherein the widget includes at least one of capacity information about the memory, information related to the first deletion target data, or information related to the second deletion target data (Kernick [0048])
As per Claim 11, Kernick teaches:
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device, if the first deletion target data is deleted, refrain from displaying the information related to the first deletion target data on the widget (Kernick [0014, 0016, 0048] teaches removal of data.)
Claims 12-18 are the method claims corresponding to device claims 1-3, 5-6, & 9 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Claims 19-20 are the media claims corresponding to device claims 1 & 4 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights