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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No additional information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted for consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 01/02/2024.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
1, 12, and 13 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Amended Claims” and “Applicant Arguments/Remarks“ dated 07/29/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 07/29/2026 with respect to claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) OKAMOTO, JP 6541302, and previously disclosed prior art reference(s) and LEE, UEHIRA, WALKIN, NAMOUS, NI, and PARK. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
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) 1, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al., US 20200333932, herein further known as Lee, in view of OKAMOTO, JP 6541302, herein further known as Okamoto. further in view of UEHIRA, US 20080091338, herein further known as Uehira.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a widget providing method (¶¶ [0133-0134], [0159], at least one icon for indicating at least one widget or at least one application) performed in a navigation device (¶ [0047], a navigation device, a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, [0104], electronic device with navigation application), the widget providing method (¶¶ [0133-0134], [0159] first page may include at least one of at least one icon for indicating at least one widget or at least one application) comprising: information about recently executed applications from a user device of a user (¶¶ [0101-0104], execution history, execution order) in a mobility apparatus equipped with the navigation device (¶ [0104], navigation application, which has been executed most frequently in a car (i.e. mobility apparatus), information about recently executed applications from the user device (¶¶ [0101-0104], execution history), wherein the information about the recently executed applications includes execution order information about an order in which the recently executed applications have been executed in the user (¶¶ [0101-0104], execution order); determining a display arrangement sequence (¶ [0130], arrangement (for example, display order) of the at least one item) of widgets (¶¶ [0133-0134], [0159]) of the recently executed applications (¶¶ [0101-0104], execution history, execution order) on a display of the navigation device , based on the execution order information (¶¶ [0047], navigation device, [0101-0104], execution history, execution order of electronic device with navigation application); and displaying the widgets in a first area of the display of the navigation device (¶¶ [0074], [0090-0091]), based on the determined display arrangement sequence (¶ [0130], arrangement (for example, display order) of the at least one item).
However, Lee does not explicitly state obtaining, by the navigation device through communication with information about recently executed applications from the user device and wherein the first area is positioned at a position adjacent to a side of the display of the navigation device opposite to a driver seat of the mobility apparatus.
Okamoto teaches obtaining, by the navigation device through communication with information about recently executed applications from the user device (pages 2-3, navigation device 10 and the portable terminal device 20 are communicably connected to each other, page 2, navigation device 10 is an in-vehicle device, page 10. according to the navigation device 10 of the present embodiment, by displaying the icon(s) having the same symbol as the icon(s) displayed on the portable terminal device 20).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Lee the obtaining, by the navigation device through communication with information about recently executed applications from the user device as taught by Okamoto.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Okamoto for the reasons stated in Okamoto, more robust methods and systems which allows a plurality of applications to be downloaded on a display, and allow the user to select and use any application from among the plurality of applications on the display from either the mobile device and/or the navigation device within a vehicle.
Furthermore, Uehira teaches the navigation display opposite to a driver seat of the mobility apparatus (¶ [0023], and claim 2).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Lee the navigation display opposite to a driver seat of the mobility apparatus as taught by Uehira.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Uehira for the reasons stated in Uehira paragraph [0033], more robust method and system for increasing driving safety since the driver does not take his eyes off the road ahead in order to obtain the route guidance information.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The apparatus/device taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira, in view of WALKIN, US 20220350463, herein further known as Walkin.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Lee discloses displaying the widgets (¶¶ [0133-0134], [0159]).
However, Lee does not explicitly state displaying in the first area includes displaying a first order at a left side of the first area or a right side of the first area, based on user sitting position information.
Walkin teaches displaying in the first area includes displaying a first-order at a left side of the first area or a right side of the first area, based on user sitting position information (¶ [0302], device displays the dock at a user-specified position (e.g., next to the input) when the long-press input is detected at a second region of the edge of the display (e.g., not in the center region and/or not within a predetermined proximity to the end of the edge) (i.e. left side or right side of first area))
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Lee the displaying in the first area includes displaying a first-order at a left side of the first area or a right side of the first area, based on user sitting position information as taught by Walkin.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Walkin for the reasons stated in Walkin paragraph [0013], more robust method and system increasing the effectiveness, efficiency of user interface elements, and increasing user satisfaction.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 2. The apparatus/device taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform the methods of claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 5-6, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira, in view of NAMOUS et al., US 20240273078, herein further known as Namous.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Lee discloses displaying the widgets in the first area (¶¶ [0133-0134], [0159]).
However, Lee does not explicitly state adding a plurality of widgets respectively corresponding to a plurality of slots arranged in the first area to the plurality of slots.
Namous teaches adding a plurality of widgets respectively corresponding to a plurality of slots arranged in the first area to the plurality of slots (¶¶ [0015], ranking and placement of widgets in widget slots, [0035], populate the widget slots, see claim, 1, see also FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Lee the adding a plurality of widgets respectively corresponding to a plurality of slots arranged in the first area to the plurality of slots as taught by Namous.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Namous for the reasons stated in Namous paragraph [0013], more robust method and system directed to optimizing widget placement on a graphical user interface for a more positive user experience by reducing irrelevant widgets.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Lee does not explicitly state the first area includes at least one slot arranged in a horizontal direction.
Namous teaches the first area includes at least one slot arranged in a horizontal direction (see FIG. 5. Slots 1, 2…M are shown in a horizontal column).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Lee the adding a plurality of widgets respectively corresponding to a plurality of slots arranged in the first area includes at least one slot arranged in a horizontal direction as taught by Namous.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Namous for the reasons stated in Namous paragraph [0013], more robust method and system directed to optimizing widget placement on a graphical user interface for a more positive user experience by reducing irrelevant widgets.
Regarding claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 5. The apparatus/device taught/disclosed in claim 17 can clearly perform the methods of claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 9, 12, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira, in view of NI et al., US 20200348839, herein further known as Ni.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Lee does not explicitly state obtaining situation information of the mobility apparatus; and displaying widgets of recently executed applications associated with the situation information of the mobility apparatus in a second area different from the first area (¶¶ [0004-0019]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Lee the displaying the situation information of the mobility apparatus in a second area different from the first area as taught by Ni.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Ni for the reasons stated in Ni paragraph [0003], more robust method and system to improve navigation operation flexibility and operation efficiency.
Claim(s) 9, 12, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira, and Ni, further in view of PARK et al., US 20210073008, herein further known as Park.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee, Okamoto, and Uehira disclose all elements of claim 7 above.
Lee discloses displaying the widgets in the first area (¶¶ [0133-0134], [0159]) obtaining frequency information on a frequency with which each of the recently executed applications (¶¶ [0102-0104], executed most frequently at the current time, most frequently executed at home, executed most frequently in a car, [0129], list 422 may include at least one item for indicating at least one frequently executed application) executed in the user device (¶¶ [0083], [0121]).
However, Lee does not explicitly state displaying the widgets in the second area associated with the situation information of the mobility apparatus; and displaying the widgets of the recently executed applications associated with the situation information of the mobility apparatus in the second area, based on a display arrangement sequence determined based on the frequency information.
Ni teaches displaying the situation information of the mobility apparatus in a second area different from the first area (¶¶ [0004-0019]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Lee the displaying the situation information of the mobility apparatus in a second area different from the first area as taught by Ni.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Ni for the reasons stated in Ni paragraph [0003], more robust method and system to improve navigation operation flexibility and operation efficiency.
Furthermore, Park teaches obtaining frequency information on a frequency with which each of the recently executed applications and a display arrangement sequence determined based on the frequency information (¶¶ [0052-0053], displaying the frequently used apps in the driving situation in a different position from the frequently used apps in the daily time period).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Lee the obtaining frequency information on a frequency with which each of the recently executed applications and a display arrangement sequence determined based on the frequency information as taught by Park.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Park for the reasons stated in Park paragraphs [0014-0015], more robust method and system improving the accessibility of apps and the convenience of an app by saving time and effort otherwise spent searching for and executing each frequently used app.
Furthermore, Park teaches widget providing method (¶ [0076], user terminal 10 can see the apps using a widget) performed in a navigation device (¶¶ [0019-0020], [0024], [0027], [0031-0036], [0040], used in the driving situation), the widget providing method comprising: obtaining information about recently executed applications from a user device (¶¶ [0036], [0040], [0098], collect app usage information, frequently used apps, e.g., the user terminal, is used) of a user in a mobility apparatus (¶¶ [0125], [0152], [0161], user terminal 10 is connected to one system among systems of a vehicle) equipped with the navigation device (¶¶ [0019-0020], [0024], [0027], [0031-0036], [0040], used in the driving situation), wherein the information about the recently executed applications includes execution order information about an order in which the recently executed applications have been executed in the user device (¶¶ [0020], [0024], [0038], [0041], [0046], [0103], app execution order); determining a display arrangement sequence of widgets of the recently executed applications on a display of the navigation device, based on the execution order information (¶¶ [0055-0056], [0101], display frequently used applications, based on the determined application usage pattern).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Lee the widget providing method performed in a navigation device, the widget providing method comprising: obtaining information about recently executed applications from a user device of a user in a mobility apparatus equipped with the navigation device, wherein the information about the recently executed applications includes execution order information about an order in which the recently executed applications have been executed in the user device; determining a display arrangement sequence of widgets of the recently executed applications on a display of the navigation device, based on the execution order information as taught by Park.
One would be motivated to modify Lee in view of Park for the reasons stated in Park paragraphs [0014-0015], more robust method and system improving the accessibility of apps and the convenience of an app by saving time and effort otherwise spent searching for and executing each frequently used app.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claims 1 and 9. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform the methods of claims 1 and 9. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 9 above.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 9. The apparatus/device taught/disclosed in claim 20 can clearly perform the methods of claim 9. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 8, 10-11, 15-16, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no case, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights