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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is filed in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks made in an amendment filed 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-19 are amended.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-19 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1, Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks made in an amendment filed 05/26/2026, pg. 13-16 that Janakiraman does not disclose
extracting, from the natural language instruction, at least one descriptor of the at least one UI element and identifying, based on the at least one descriptor, a location of the at least one UI element on the first user screen;
tracking, by the computing device of the first user, a vector of a cursor movement of a cursor associated with the computing device of the first user on the first user screen relative to the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor;
determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the tracked vector of the cursor movement, that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor; determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the determination that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor, that the at least one UI element instructed for manipulation in the identified natural language instruction is not being manipulated by the first user to perform the computing input action on the computing device.
Response to Argument 1, applicant’s arguments have been considered and in light of the amendments a newly found combination of prior art (U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200313916 “Janakiraman”, in light of U.S. Patent NO. 10,445,051 “Subash”, further in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150142447 “Kennewick”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 10402159 “Darrah”) is applied to updated rejections.
However the examiner notes that Janakiraman at least suggests extracting, from the natural language instruction, at least one descriptor of the at least one UI element and identifying, based on the at least one descriptor, a location of the at least one UI element on the first user screen; tracking, by the computing device of the first user, a vector of a cursor movement of a cursor associated with the computing device of the first user on the first user screen relative to the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor. Janakiraman teaches identifying a button associated with a spoken command such as identifying a mute button from the phrase, ‘please mute your line’. Janakiraman further teaches a positional vector of a cursor relative to an NLP identified button in that an arrow may be generated with the positional vector originating from the user’s cursor and towards the mute button.
This is supported by the following paragraphs of Janakiraman
para. [0017], the system may determine by analyzing spoken content via natural language processing that a single presenter has given a command to the other users. The system may determine that the command given has instructed the users to utilize a UI element (e.g., mute icon, screen share icon, chat box, etc.)
[0048], to learn how to locate the respective UI element and create user guidance to be provided the confused user… changes to the UI element include, but are not limited to, the UI element getting larger, changing color, blinking, and/or including an arrow or other indicator that moves from the location of the user's cursor to the UI element
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.
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.
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, 3, 5, 8-9, 11, 13, 16-17, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200313916 “Janakiraman”, in light of U.S. Patent NO. 10,445,051 “Subash”, further in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150142447 “Kennewick”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 10402159 “Darrah”.
Claim 1:
Janakiraman teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
(i.e. para. [0017, 0026], “The system may determine that the command given has instructed the users to utilize a UI element (e.g., mute icon, screen share icon, chat box, etc.)… the user devices 125 are operated by one or more users within the virtual conferencing session 120. The user devices 125 may be any type of device (e.g., computer, smartphone, tablet, etc.) configured to communicatively connect to the virtual conferencing session”, wherein it is noted that any user connected to a conferencing session may be a first user with a screen with a plurality of UI elements )
Performing, by the computing device (i.e. i.e. para. [0026, 0059], “The user devices 125 may be any type of computer system and may be substantially similar to computer system 1101 of FIG. 5… Referring now to FIG. 5, shown is a high-level block diagram of an example computer system 1101 that may be used in implementing one or more of the methods, tools, and modules, and any related functions”, wherein it is noted that NLP module may be a module located on a first user’s computing system), natural language processing of a feedback received from the second user to the computing device of the first user (i.e. para. [0029], “the NLP module 106 may detect the words “mute your line” when spoken during the virtual conferencing session 120. The NLP module 106 may correlate the word “mute” with a UI action to use the mute button retrieved from a UI element dictionary 110”, wherein feedback from a second user 125B may be translated to a first user 125A);
in response to performing the natural language processing of the feedback received from the second user, identifying, by the computing device computing input action on the computing device (i.e. para. [0031], “The UI element dictionary may include various user guidance to provide users assistance on interacting with a respective UI element. In embodiments, the guidance may include various text, descriptions, images, video, and/or audio media depending on the type of challenges a user may be experiencing. For example, mute icon guidance may include various videos on how to find the mute icon. The system may retrieve this video when the UI action mute is detected from a phrase uttered by a user (e.g., please mute your line) and another user is determined to be experiencing difficulty in finding the UI element”), wherein identifying the natural language instruction comprises extracting, from the natural language instruction, at least one descriptor of the at least one UI element (i.e. para. [0017], , the system may determine by analyzing spoken content via natural language processing that a single presenter has given a command to the other users. The system may determine that the command given has instructed the users to utilize a UI element (e.g., mute icon, screen share icon, chat box, etc.)) and identifying, based on the at least one descriptor, a location of the at least one UI element on the first user screen (i.e. para. [0048], “to learn how to locate the respective UI element and create user guidance to be provided the confused user… changes to the UI element include, but are not limited to, the UI element getting larger, changing color, blinking, and/or including an arrow or other indicator that moves from the location of the user's cursor to the UI element”, wherein it is noted that a location of the UI element described by the spoken command must be identified for guidance to be given in the form of generating an arrow that moves from the location of the user’s cursor to the identified UI element);
tracking, by the computing device of the first user, a vector of a cursor movement of a cursor associated with the computing device of the first user on the first user screen relative to the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor (i.e. para. [0048], “ an arrow or other indicator that moves from the location of the user's cursor to the UI element”, wherein it is noted that in order to generate guidance in the form of generating an arrow that moves from the location of the user’s cursor to the identified UI element, that a vector direction from the user’s cursor relative to the identified UI element must be found in order to generate an arrow in the direction of the vector that starts at the user’s cursor location and ends towards the identified UI element);
(i.e. para. [0044-0045], “If the UI action data threshold has not been met, “No” at step 225, the process 200 will return to monitoring the virtual conferencing session at step 205. For example, if an average level user typically takes less than 5 mouse clicks to access the mute button, the UI action data threshold may be set to 7 mouse clicks. In this way, the UI action data threshold would not be met for average level users and the system will continue to monitor the virtual conferencing session for other commands…. If the data threshold has been met, “Yes” at step 225, the process 200 will continue by determining that the one or more users are experiencing difficulty in locating the UI element. This is illustrated at step 230. For example, if a beginner level user has exceeded the data threshold of 7 mouse clicks, the system will determine that the user is experiencing difficulty); and translating, by the computing device (i.e. para. [0048], The system may provide various data (e.g., text, images, video, audio) and/or guidance to aid the user experiencing difficulty in finding the appropriate UI element. In embodiments, the system may provide captured screenshots, audio, or video snippets relevant to the UI action… the UI element displayed on the user's screen may change to help guide the user to the UI element. Example changes to the UI element include, but are not limited to, the UI element getting larger, changing color, blinking, and/or including an arrow or other indicator that moves from the location of the user's cursor to the UI element).
While Janakiraman teaches a framework for a first user receiving an instruction from a second user, decoded by a NLP module, which references a UI element and executes UI guidance translated into displayed assistance and guidance to a first user, Janakiraman may not explicitly teach
sharing, by a computing device of a first user, a first user screen of the computing device with a second user,
Performing, by the computing device of the first user, natural language processing;
identifying, by the computing device of a first user, a natural language instruction;…
determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the tracked vector of the cursor movement, that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor; determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the determination that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor
translating, by the computing device of the first user, an intent of the identified natural language instruction;
However, Subash teaches
sharing, by a computing device of a first user, a first user screen of the computing device with a second user (i.e. Col. 2, lines 15-25, When the user launches a customer support application on the tablet computing device 100 and initiates a screen sharing function, data representing the user interface content 110 currently being displayed on the tablet computing device 100 is transmitted to the support agent computing device 150).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sharing, by a computing device of a first user, a first user screen of the computing device with a second user, to Janakiraman’s UI guidance, with a first user may share their screen with a second user in order to receive guidance, as taught by Subash. One would have been motivated to combine Subash with Janakiraman and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a more effective to communicate and solve a problem being experienced.
While Janakiraman-Subash teach a computing device capable of performing NLP, identifying NLP instructions, determining that the instruction is not being followed, and subsequently translating the intent of the NLP into instructions to a first user and strongly implies that a computing device of a first user is capable of executing such an NLP module functions, Janakiraman-Subash may not explicitly teach
Performing, by the computing device of the first user, natural language processing;
identifying, by the computing device of a first user, a natural language instruction
determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the tracked vector of the cursor movement, that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor; determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the determination that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor
translating, by the computing device of the first user, an intent of the identified natural language instruction.
However, Kennewick teaches
Performing, by the computing device of the first user, natural language processing (i.e. para. [0038], each device 210 may have various services or applications associated therewith, and may perform various aspects of natural language processing locally. [ 0030], the intent determination engine 130a may determine whether to process a given input locally (e.g., when the device 100 has intent determination capabilities that suggest favorable conditions for recognition));
identifying, by the computing device of a first user, a natural language instruction (i.e. para. [0048], an intent of the multi-modal natural language input may be determined at the input device using local natural language processing capabilities and resources)
determining, by the computing device of the first user, (i.e. para. [0048], As such, the input device may attempt to determine a best guess as to an intent of the user that provided the input, such as identifying a conversation type (e.g., query, didactic, or exploratory) or request that may be contained in the input (e.g., a command or query relating to one or more domain agents or application domains));
translating, by the computing device of the first user, an intent of the identified natural language instruction (i.e. para. [0049], When the intent determination meets the acceptable level confidence, processing may proceed directly to an operation 380 where action may be taken in response thereto. For example, when the intent determination indicates that the user has requested certain information, one or more queries may be formulated to retrieve the information)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Performing, by the computing device of the first user, natural language processing; identifying, by the computing device of a first user, a natural language instruction; determining, by the computing device of the first user; translating, by the computing device of the first user, an intent of the identified natural language instruction, to Janakiraman-Subash UI guidance, with how a NLP module may process, identify, and execute user intent on a local device using local resources, as taught by Kennewick. One would have been motivated to combine the decentralized NLP modules of Kennewick with the intent monitoring and inaction thresholds of Janakiraman-Subash and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine the intent of a natural language input without assistance from the central device or the secondary devices, communications and processing resources may be conserved by taking immediate action as may be appropriate [Kennewick, para. 0050].
While Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick teach generating user guidance towards an identified UI element in the form of tracking a user’s cursor and the vector towards the identified UI element, Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick may not explicitly teach
determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the tracked vector of the cursor movement, that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor; determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the determination that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor.
However, Darrah teaches
determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the tracked vector of the cursor movement (i.e. Col. 12, lines 40-43, “For example, the feature determination module 128 may determine a position of the pointer 124 relative to one or more features 126”, wherein the BRI for a tracked vector encompasses the relative position vector of the pointer with respect to a desired feature icon on a GUI), that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified (i.e. Col. 12, lines 60-67, “The rate at which the tone is repeated may decrease as the pointer 124 is moved away from the first feature 126(1)”, wherein an audible alert may play as the trajectory of the mouse vector moves away from a desired feature icon) based on the at least one descriptor (Col. 2, lines 54-59, “when a webpage having a particular link or button is rendered, a user may be provided with a first tone, followed by a second tone after passage of an interval of time. The length of the interval of time may correspond to the distance between a pointer associated with a mouse device and the particular link or button”, wherein the BRI for the descriptor encompasses how it is noted that each UI element has a specific tone and that a user would be able to tell if they were moving away from the described UI element by the tone being repeated at a decreasing rate); determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the determination that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor, (i.e. Col. 12, lines 60-67, “The rate at which the tone is repeated may decrease as the pointer 124 is moved away from the first feature 126(1)”, wherein it would be determined by the computing the device of the first user that a first user is moving their mouse pointer away from a target element by the decreasing tone rate of the specific UI element and thus Darrah sets the stage for tracking a mouse movement away from a target UI element and giving some sort of feedback to the user indicative of the UI element not being manipulated by the user).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the tracked vector of the cursor movement, that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor; determining, by the computing device of the first user, based on the determination that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor, to Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick’s NLP UI guidance, with a mouse pointer trajectory with respect to an identified UI element is tracked and monitored for the case in which the mouse pointer trajectory is not towards a specific UI element, as taught by Darrah. One would have been motivated to mouse tracking scenario for when a user moves their mouse away from an UI element of Darrah with the NLP identification of a desired UI element and the subsequent guidance methods of Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order give a user a visual indication pop-up as the user moves their mouse pointer away from a target UI element as the combination may permit more direct and efficient interaction with and navigation of content as techniques help users more effectively use input devices configured to move a pointer within a display area by providing such feedback to the users.
Claim 3:
Janakiraman, Subash, Kennewick, and Darrah teach the method of claim 1.
Janakiraman further teaches wherein the performing the natural language processing of the feedback received from the second user to the computing device of the first user further comprises:
capturing an audio input stream from the second user (i.e. para. [0040], a user in the virtual conferencing session may say the phrase “please go on mute” to the other participants in the conference); transcribing the captured audio input stream to into text data (i.e. para. [0040], The system will detect the keyword “mute” through natural language processing); and classifying the text data as including an action criteria corresponding to the natural language instruction (i.e. para. [0040], and determine that the word corresponds to muting audio using a mute button icon (e.g., UI element)).
Claim 5:
Janakiraman, Subash, Kennewick, and Darrah teach the method of claim 1.
Janakiraman further teaches determining that the at least one UI element instructed for manipulation in the identified natural language instructions is not being manipulated to perform the computing input action using the computing device: retrieving a triggering threshold associated with the first user; and determining within a timeframe indicated by the retrieved triggering threshold, that the cursor movement does not correspond to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified in the at least one descriptor (i.e. para. [0019], “Once the system determines one or more users have failed to locate a respective UI element within the required threshold, the system will become an active participant on the respective user's UI and provide assistance to the one or more users experiencing difficulty”, wherein the BRI for a cursor movement not corresponding to movement toward the location of the at least one UI element identified in the at least one descriptor encompasses a scenario in which a user fails to locate the ‘mute’ element with their mouse by not moving their mouse towards the ‘mute’ element within a timeout threshold).
Claim 8:
Janakiraman, Subash, Kennewick, and Darrah teach the method of claim 1.
Janakiraman further teaches wherein the UI guidance displayed on the first user screen further comprises: graphically annotating a portion of the first user screen to assist the first user to move a cursor to the graphically annotated portion, wherein the graphically annotated include the location of the at least one UI element identified based on the at least one descriptor (i.e. para. [0048], “Fig. 3, Example changes to the UI element include, but are not limited to, the UI element getting larger, changing color, blinking, and/or including an arrow or other indicator that moves from the location of the user's cursor to the UI element”, wherein an arrow towards a location the UI element indicates the location of the identified UI element).
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is the system claim reciting similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the system claim reciting similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the system claim reciting similar limitations to claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the system claim reciting similar limitations to claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the computer program product claim reciting similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the computer program product claim reciting similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 2, 10, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200313916 “Janakiraman” in light of U.S. Patent NO. 10,445,051 “Subash”, further in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150142447 “Kennewick”, further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 10402159 “Darrah”, and further in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20180213358 “Shen”.
Claim 2:
Janakiraman, Subash, Kennewick, and Darrah teach the method of claim 1.
Janakiraman, Subash, Kennewick, and Darrah may not explicitly teach
receiving an approval from the first user indicating the second user as an authorized speaker; and
processing the feedback received from the second user based on the received approval.
However, Shen teaches: receiving an approval from the first user indicating the second user as an authorized speaker (i.e. para. [0091], “the first terminal initiates the help request to the second terminal… the user of the second terminal selects the acceptance button”, wherein the BRI for approval encompasses the first user initiating a connection with a second user, who is noted in para. [0011] as capable of providing audio feedback); and processing the feedback transmitted from the second user based on the received approval (i.e. para. [0011], “Optionally, the prompt information includes at least one piece of the following information: … audio information used to indicate the position of the target point or indicate the specific path to the target point”, wherein the second user may speak audio information as feedback to the first user’s request for help).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add s receiving an approval from the first user indicating the second user as an authorized speaker; and processing the feedback transmitted from the second user based on the received approval, to Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick’s UI guidance and screen sharing, with receiving an approval from the first user indicating the second user as an authorized speaker; and processing the feedback transmitted from the second user based on the received approval, as taught by Shen. One would have been motivated to combine Shen with Janakiraman and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to give more accurate prompt information used for helping the help seeker.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the system claim reciting similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the computer program product claim reciting similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20200313916 “Janakiraman” in light of U.S. Patent NO. 10,445,051 “Subash”, further in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20150142447 “Kennewick”, and further in light of U.S. Patent NO. 10402159 “Darrah”, and further in light of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20060197746 “Nirhamo”.
Claim 6:
Janakiraman, Subash, Kennewick, and Darrah teach the method of claim 1.
While Janakiraman teaches the UI guidance displayed on the first user screen, including an arrow or other indicator (i.e. para. [0048], Example changes to the UI element include, but are not limited to, the UI element getting larger, changing color, blinking, and/or including an arrow or other indicator), Janakiraman may not explicitly teach wherein the UI guidance further comprises: displaying a quad arrow, wherein each directional arrow of the displayed quad arrow is associated with a respective direction on the first user screen; and highlighting the directional arrow associated with guiding the first user to move a cursor from a current cursor position towards the respective direction of the highlighted directional arrow.
However, Nirhamo teaches
displaying a quad arrow, wherein each directional arrow of the displayed quad arrow is associated with a respective direction on the first user screen (i.e. para. [0031], FIGS. 3A and 3B, “the navigation guidance displays the paths from the selection component the cursor 302 currently indicates to the selection components directly connected to the selection component the cursor 302 currently indicates”, wherein the BRI for a quad arrow encompasses how navigation guidance in the directions of the Setup, Trailers, Language options, and Behind the scenes are four respective directions a user can move their cursor); and highlighting the directional arrow associated with guiding the first user to move the cursor from a current cursor position toward the location of the at least one UI element (i.e. para. [0031], The components directly connected to the selection component a cursor 402 currently indicates, as well as corresponding paths, may be highlighted to indicate better where the cursor 402 may be moved with a single activation of a direction key of the input device)
Janakiraman further teaches that the arrow may be highlighted in a direction towards a UI element
identified based on the at least one descriptor (i.e. para. [0048], “Example changes to the UI element include, but are not limited to, the UI element getting larger, changing color, blinking, and/or including an arrow or other indicator”, wherein an arrow may be displayed indicating a direction towards an identified ‘mute’ button).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add displaying a quad arrow, wherein each directional arrow of the displayed quad arrow is associated with a respective direction on a first user screen; and highlighting the directional arrow associated with guiding the first user to move the cursor from a current cursor position toward the location of the at least one UI element, to Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick’s screen sharing and assistance methods with displaying a quad arrow, wherein each directional arrow of the displayed quad arrow is associated with a respective direction on a first user screen; and highlighting the directional arrow associated with guiding the first user to move a cursor from a current cursor position towards the respective direction of the highlighted directional arrow as taught by Nirhamo. One would have been motivated to combine Nirhamo with Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to further assist a user in the selection of a particular element.
Claim 7:
Janakiraman, Subash, Kennewick, and Darrah teach the method of claim 1.
While Janakiraman teaches the UI guidance displayed on the first user screen with regards to an intent of the identified natural language instruction based on the at least one descriptor (i.e. para. [0022], The system may analyze these commands and correlate the commands with UI actions to update user guidance for providing assistance to inexperienced users), Janakiraman may not explicitly teach wherein the UI guidance further comprises:
automatically repositioning a cursor on a first user screen from a current position to the location of the at least one UI element based on the at least one descriptor.
However, Nirhamo teaches wherein displaying the UI guidance further comprises:
automatically repositioning a cursor on a first user screen from a current position to the location of the at least one UI element based on the at least one [instruction] (i.e. para. [0030], “As FIG. 3B illustrates, when compared to FIG. 3A, the cursor 302 has been moved to indicate the `language options` selection component”, wherein the cursor is automatically repositioned from a current Soundtrack position to a specific Language Options element based on the instruction of using a left direction key).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add automatically repositioning a cursor on a first user screen from a current position to the location of the at least one UI element based on the at least one instruction, to Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick’s screen sharing and assistance methods with automatically repositioning a cursor on a first user screen from a current position to a specific element on the first user screen based on the identified computing action as taught by Nirhamo. One would have been motivated to combine Nirhamo with Janakiraman-Subash-Kennewick and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in order to further assist a user in the selection of a particular element.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the system claim reciting similar limitations to claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the system claim reciting similar limitations to claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application NO. 20210097866 “Leary”, teaches in para. [0124] the client device can determine that the camera sensor is pointed in a wrong direction and present an indication (e.g., an arrow or pointer, a message, etc.) identifying a correct or more accurate direction to point the camera sensor in order to capture the autonomous vehicle. In some cases, the client device can generate a visual and/or audio message notifying the user that the camera sensor is pointed in a wrong or inaccurate direction and providing instructions for how or where to point the camera sensor.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 event, 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 DAVID H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at (571) 272-4128. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights