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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 1 and 20, the phrase “reordering” and “modifying the perceived depth” seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how the term “reordering” and “modifying” should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations. “reordering” could be interpreted as “reorganization,” or “rearrangement,” or “reallocation”, while modifying could be interpreted as “adapting”, or “adjusting”, etc. It is unclear if the element that is undergoing “reordering” has to be in direct contact with and/or positioned with graphical or graphic element. It is also unclear is the “modified perceived depth” is based on the device or user.
No special definition of “reordering” or “modifying” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “reordering,” which seems to imply that the graphical elements must be both positioned in an exact position for the user to perceive. However, the specification is silent as to interpretation of the placement of the graphical elements on the head-up display or how the elements are modified or changed. The specification does not prohibit such an interpretation. Therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Claims 2-5, 9, 14, 78, and 79 depend from Claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 9, 14, 78, and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Under Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method.
Under Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating and presenting graphical and perceived depth location. This abstract idea is described in at least claim 1 by “performing an action associated with the currently selected graphical element in response to user actuation of an activation control”; determining an order for each of the plurality of graphical elements determining a respective priority score for each of the plurality of graphical elements based on one or more user actions; reordering the plurality of graphical elements based on the respective priority scores”. These steps fall into the mental process groups of abstract ideas as they include, mentally or using the aid of pen and paper, “reordering the plurality of graphical elements based on the respective priority scores”. These limitations as drafted processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the mind. Nothing in claim 1 precludes the idea form practically being performed in the human mind.
Under Step 2A – Prong 2:
The claim recite additional elements each graphical element being displayed at one of a range of perceived depths on the head-up display and determining scores for graphical elements viewed or shown. However, these additional elements fail to integrate into a practical application. The computing device, is a generic computing components. These additional elements are considered to be directed to insignificant solution activity as the step gathers data necessary to perform the abstract idea and outputting results. These additional steps amount necessary data gathering, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering or data output. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B:
For the same reasons addressed above with respect to step 2A, the additional elements recited in claim 1 fail to amount to inventive concept. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2-5, 9, 14, 78, and 79:
Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 14, 78, and 79 only recite limitations further defining the mental processes and recite further data gathering. These limitations are considered mental processes without significantly more elements to the abstract idea. These additional elements fail to integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole claim 2-5, 9, 14, 78, and 79 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872