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
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on November 18, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 18, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 10-13, 15-18 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 19-21 is/are drawn an apparatus. As such, claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 10 (representative of independent claim(s) 1 and 19) recites the following steps:
identifying, a plurality of persons in an operation control center, wherein the operation control center [is] accessible to the plurality of persons; wherein a first person of the plurality of persons is allocated a first display area corresponding to a first physical location and based on security access rights of the first person,
identifying a second person in the operation control center;
detecting, , a face; and determining that the face is of the second person based on comparing the face against a [collection] of facial images comprising a facial image of the second person:
in response to identifying the second person: retrieve, a user profile of the second person, wherein the user profile indicates security access rights and responsibilities of the second person;
determine a physical location of the second person in the operation control center;
when the second person is located in a second physical location, allocating, on the visual interface, a second display area to the second person based on the second physical location, the security access rights, and the responsibilities, and when the second person is located in a third physical location, allocating, a third display area that is different from the second display area to the second person based on the third physical location, the security access rights, and the responsibilities,
wherein allocating comprises positioning the third display area at a first position of the visual interface and the second display area at a second position of the visual interface, wherein the first position and the second position are relative display area positions that correspond to relative physical locations the second person in the operation control center;
notifying the first person of a security event using an alert on the first display area
generating, on the first display area, a first set of options to resolve the security event;
receiving an escalation request from the first person via a user selection on the first display area;
notifying the second person of the security event on the second display area or the third display area of the display device based on the physical location of the second person in response to receiving the escalation request;
generating and displaying, on the second display area or the third display area based on the physical location of the second person, a second set of options to resolve the security event, wherein the second set of options is greater than the first set of options, and wherein a set of options limited by security access rights of a given person
Furthermore, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) configuring a display for multi-person usage (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 10 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 and 19 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
An apparatus for configuring a display device for multi-person usage in an operation control center
memory
a processor communicatively coupled with the memory
at least one sensor
visual interface
the display device outputting a visual interface
using facial recognition
wherein the at least one sensor includes a camera configured to capture a video stream;
database
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, executable by a processor, for performing a method for configuring a display device for multi person
usage in an operation control center,
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea nor do they represent an improvement to the technology, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims (2A/ 2B):
Dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17 20 and 21 fail to include any additional elements and are considered a part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2, 6, 9, 11, 15 and 18 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
“display device”
“memory”
“visual interface”
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea nor do they represent an improvement to the technology, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balakrishna (11,030,351) in view of Spataro (2020/0327171) and Teng (CN 109460655).
Claim 1, 10 and 19
Balakrishna discloses an apparatus for configuring a display device for multi-person usage in an operation control center, comprising:
at least one sensor that includes a camera configured to capture a video stream (Balakrishna [Column 4 Lines 3-12]) See at least “The ID detector 112 may receive a data signal from any device capable of transmitting a data signal, such as, but not limited to, ID reader device 140, identification (ID) tags 152a-d associated with users lS0a-d, which are described in more detail below, remote or integral cameras or microphones, and systems equipped with cameras or microphones having gait detection, human motion recognition, silhouette recognition, speech recognition, or facial recognition technology capabilities.” Where the ID detector is a sensor.
a memory storing a plurality of user profiles (Balakrishna [Column 6 Lines 54-57]) See at least “If the user 150a is listed in the program database 124 as 55 having access to the secure data display system, the security level of the user 150a is then determined using the security level detection module 172.”
a processor communicatively coupled with the memory and configured to (Balakrishna [Column 9 Lines 3-15]):
identify, using at least one sensor, a plurality of persons in an operation control center (Balakrishna [Column 3 Lines 51-67][Column 4 Lines 1-20]), See at least “In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, the ID detector [sensor] may receive a data signal from the ID tags 152a-d associated with the users 150a-d when they enter a pre-determined area surrounding the display device 110.”
wherein the operation control center comprises a display device accessible to the plurality of persons, wherein a first person of the plurality of persons is allocated a first display area corresponding to a first physical location and based on security access rights of the first person (Balakrishna [Column 1 Lines 50-60][Column 2 Lines 59-63]); See at least [Column 3 Lines 43-46] “The display device 110 may have one or more regions with each region associated with a distinct security level.
identify, using the at least one sensor, a second person in the operation control center by; detecting, using facial recognition, a face in the video stream; and determining that the face is of the second person based on comparing the face against a database of facial images comprising a facial image of the second person; in response to identifying the second person (Balakrishna [Column 4 Lines 4-12 and 55-58]): Where the reference teaches that the ID detector 112 [sensor] will detect when another user [second user] enters the defined area. See [Column 5 Lines 5-13] “The program database 124 also contains a list of the users lS0a-d, described in more detail below, who have access to the secure data display system. The program database 124 may also store the security clearance levels associated with the users 150a-d and any security parameters for the data 136 set by 10 the one or more users lS0a-d. For example, the program database may 124 contain a list of employees at a company along with their respective security clearances. “
and retrieve, from the memory, user profile of the second person, wherein the user profile indicates security access rights and responsibilities of the second person (Balakrishna [Column 4 Lines 55-66]) See at least “The display device 110 will detect when another user or users [second user], such as, but not limited to, the users lS0b-d, enter a defined area around the display device 110 using the ID detector 112. The area may be a security parameter that is defined with respect to the display, and may 60 be predefined or dynamically defined. The display device 110 will further detect the security level associated with the other user or users, such as, but not limited to, the users 150b-d and transmit that security level to the secure data display program 122. The secure data display program 122 65 will process the security level associated with all users detected by the display device 110…” See also [Column 1 Lines 52-54] “The computing device may detect a second user within the defined area of the display device and the second user may have a second security level.”
determine physical location of and the second person in the operation control center (Balakrishna [Column 6 Lines 26-50]); See at least “the user 150a may walk in front [physical location] of the display device 110 and the ID detector 114 may receive a data signal from the ID tag 152a associated with 50 the user 150a.” See also [Column 1 Lines 45-60] “The computing device may display data on the display device and the data may be associated with a security parameter defining a security level for viewing the data. The computing device may detect a second user within the defined area of the display device and the second user may have a second security level. The computing device may determine that the second security level of the second user does not meet the security parameter for viewing the data and redact the data in response to determining that the second user does not meet the security parameter for viewing the data”
when the second person is located in a second physical location, allocate, on the visual interface, a second display area to the second person based on the second physical location, the security access rights, and the responsibilities, and when the second person is located in a third physical location, allocate, on the visual interface, a third display area that is different from the second display area to the second person based on the third physical location, the security access rights, and the responsibilities, wherein allocating comprises positioning the third display area at a first position of the visual interface and the second display area at a second position of the visual interface, (Balakrishna [Column 3 Lines 45-48]); See at least “a white board 45 may be divided into four quadrants with each quadrant being associated with a different security level and thus only viewable by a user with the requisite security clearance.” Examiner interprets the quadrants on the same whiteboard, that only reveal security level appropriate information to the viewer, as taught by the reference, to be a first and second and third display area. Also the quadrants that only reveal security level appropriate information are different areas on the display.
wherein the first position and the second position are relative display area positions that correspond to relative physical locations the second person in the operation control center; (Balakrishna [Column 6 Lines 45-67]) See “the user 150a may walk in front of the display device 110 [relative physical location of the user] and the ID detector 114 may receive a data signal from the ID tag 152a associated with 50 the user 150a. The ID detector 114 may then transmit that signal to the server 120 and the secure data display program 122 using the ID detection module 170 will verify that the user 150a has access to the secure data display system 100. If the user 150a is listed in the program database 124 as having access to the secure data display system 100, the secure data display program may obscure the display device 110 [allocation of display area] so that the unauthorized user cannot see the displayed data using the display control module 176.”
Balakrishna does not explicitly disclose notifying and escalating. Modified Spataro teaches:
notify the first person of a security event using an alert on the first display area of the visual interface; generate and display, on the first display area, a first set of options to resolve the security event; receive an escalation request from the first person via a user selection on the first display area; and notify the second person of the security event on the second display area or the third display area of the display device based on the physical location of the second person in response to receiving the escalation request; (Spataro [0015][0162]. See at least [0015] “one or more requests (e.g., from a first client and second client) can be received by a server to establish a collaboration place. Based on the one or more requests, a collaboration place can be established… The collaboration place is implemented to be associated with collaboration place interfaces executing on the user's platform (e.g., the first and second clients) wherein the collaboration place interfaces include a primary display for presenting a primary type of data [first set of options] and are configured for being escalated based on a request from the users ( e.g., their respective clients) to include at least one secondary display for presenting a secondary type of data.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing collaborations in an operation control center, as taught by Balakrishna, displaying collaboration place data to another person, as taught by Spataro, to increase efficiency and productivity of collaborative participants (Spataro [Background]).
Modified Balakrishna and Spataro disclose the limitations above, including viewing display areas based on the physical location of the person in the room, but do not explicit teach the limitation below. Teng teaches:
generate and display, on the second display area or the third display area, a second set of options to resolve the security event, wherein the second set of options is greater than the first set of options, and wherein a set of options limited by security access rights of a given person (Teng [Page 3 Lines 53-56]). See at least “In some embodiments, the permission level of the first permission range may be higher than the permission level of the second permission range; in this way, for the same permission, the first screen has a higher permission level; for example, taking the webpage viewing permission as an example, the high permission level may view all webpage content, and the low permission level may only view the specified content.”
Examiner notes that Teng teaches that the escalation and greater options are on the first screen and not the second screen, as cited in the instant claims. Examiner respectfully asserts that this step is merely as REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS (MPEP 2144.04 VI C): In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.VI.C rationale directed to common practices considered routine expedients that support an obviousness rationale, such as rearrangement of parts, to indicate that regardless of whether the greater options were presented on a first or second screen, the operations of the invention are not modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing collaborations in an operation control center, as taught by Balakrishna and Spataro, displaying greater options on a screen based on security level, as taught by Teng, to improve the security and user experience (Teng [Page 4 and 6]).
Claims 2 and 11
Modified Balakrishna, Spataro and Teng disclose the above limitations, modified Balakrishna further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the second person has greater security access rights and responsibilities than the first person (Balakrishna Column 1 Lines 50-55]) See at least “The computing device may display data on the display device and the data may be associated with a security parameter defining a security level for viewing the data. The computing device may detect a second user within the defined area of the display device and the second user may have a second security level. The computing device may determine that the second security level of the second user does not meet the security parameter for viewing the data and redact the data in response to determining that the second user does not meet the security parameter for view in the data.”
Modified Balakrishna nor Teng explicitly teach the change in the size of the screen. Modified Spataro teaches:
allocate, on the visual interface, a larger display area to the second person, wherein the second display area and the third display area are larger than the first display area (Spataro [0163][0321]). See [0163] “The shape and display of the initial space and subsequent spaces can automatically change or increase in size and content in synchronization with the escalation.” Where the reference teaches the ability of the display to resize and increasing one portion would decrease the other portion of the screen. See also Spataro [0321] Where the reference teaches optimizing screen real estate where rebalance and redistribution of presented data occurs in one or windows pr panels [third display area]. See at least “the disclosed systems and methods can rebalance and/or redistribute the presentation data for display [event records] in an escalated collaboration place interface based on forming and/or otherwise opening one or more windows or panels within the place interface, as opposed to opening additional windows external to the place interface and/or additional instances of the place interface itself.” Where rebalance and/or redistribute the presentation data for display is the sizing function. See also [0321] “panels displaying greater numbers of types of data than other panels can be allotted greater default amounts of screen space to enhance readability. Also, for example, panels displaying greater quantities of data of the same type as other panels can be allotted greater default amounts of screen space to enhance readability.” See also [0264] where a first and second display is disclosed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing collaborations in an operation control center, as taught by modified Balakrishna and Teng, displaying larger collaboration place data to another person with higher security access, as taught by Spataro, to seamlessly move from working on a project individually or working on a project collaboratively in a synchronous object to an enhanced collaboration object (Spataro [0163]).
Claims 3 and 12
Modified Balakrishna, Spataro and Teng disclose the limitations above but do not explicitly teach the display characteristics. Modified Spataro teaches:
wherein the second display area and the third display area include the first display area. (Spataro [0180]). See at least “A place interface usually includes a primary display and one or more secondary or sub-displays within the primary display…” Where one or more secondary display areas includes a third display area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing collaborations in an operation control center, as taught by modified Balakrishna and Teng, display characteristics, as taught by Spataro, to seamlessly move from working on a project individually or working on a project collaboratively in a synchronous object to an enhanced collaboration object (Spataro [0163]).
Claims 4 and 13
Modified Balakrishna, Spataro and Teng disclose the limitations above but do not explicitly teach the escalate types. Modified Spataro teaches:
wherein the escalation request is received as one of: a gesture, an expression, a physical input, and a verbal input (Spataro [0022][0162]). See at least “Some aspects of the systems and methods of embodiments the present inventions can include: drag and drop escalation [physical input], enhancement of interface from a "noncollaborative space" to a "live" collaborative space [a physical input]).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of managing collaborations in an operation control center, as taught by modified Balakrishna and Teng, escalation types, as taught by Spataro, to seamlessly move from working on a project individually or working on a project collaboratively in a synchronous object to an enhanced collaboration object (Spataro [0163]).
Claims 7 and 16
Modified Balakrishna, Spataro and Teng disclose the limitations above. Balakrishna further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: restrict access to the first display area by the first person in response to receiving the escalation request (Balakrishna Column 1 Lines 50-55]) See at least “The computing device may display data on the display device and the data may be associated with a security parameter defining a security level for viewing the data. The computing device may detect a second user within the defined area of the display device and the second user may have a second security level. The computing device may determine that the second security level of the second user does not meet the security parameter for viewing the data and redact [restrict] the data in response to determining that the second user does not meet the security parameter for view in the data.”
Claims 8 and 17
Modified Balakrishna, Spataro and Teng disclose the limitations above but does not explicitly teach the limitation below. Modified Balakrishna further teaches:
wherein the operation control center further comprises a respective workstation for each of the plurality of persons, wherein the processor is further configured to: enable the first person to monitor the security event on a workstation of the first person (Balakrishna [Column 5 Lines 26-27]) See at least “for example, there may be a user device 130 associated with each of the users lS0a-d.”
Claims 9 and 18
Modified Balakrishna, Spataro and Teng disclose the limitations above, Modified Balakrishna further teaches a projector:
wherein the display device covers a wall of the operation control center and expands from a ceiling of the operation control center to a floor of the operation control center (Balakrishna [Column 1 Lines 16-19]). The reference teaches an interactive display that resembles a whiteboard with a screen that receives images from a projector.
Balakrishna does not explicitly teach the display device covering the wall from floor to ceiling. However, Balakrishna teaches a projector. While Balakrishna does not explicitly disclose a display device covering the wall from floor to ceiling, Examiner takes Official Notice that displaying information on an entire wall is old and well known. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in the disclosure of a display device, as taught by modified Balakrishna and Spataro and Teng, the display device covering the wall from floor to ceiling as taught by Official Notice, because it is easier to divide the viewing into quadrants with each quadrant being associated with a different security level, for example as shown by (Balakrishna [Column 3 Lines 45-50]). Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.V.D rationale directed to common practices of making adjustable that support an obviousness rationale, such as making adjust to expand the size of the whiteboard to include a floor to ceiling display is merely adjusting the display.
Claim 20
Modified Balakrishna, Spataro and Teng disclose the limitations above. Modified Balakrishna further teaches:
wherein the plurality of persons are each positioned in one of a plurality of control spaces of the operation control center, wherein a given control space of the plurality of control spaces is an area in the operation control center of a defined size, and wherein the processor is further configured to: set a size of the first display area based on a physical size of a first control space of the plurality of control spaces in which the first person is located, and set a size of the first display area based on a physical size of a first control space of the plurality of control spaces in which the first person is located, and set a size of the second display area based on a physical size of a second control space of the plurality of control spaces in which the second person is located (Balakrishna [Column 4 Lines 55-67]). See at least “The display device 110 will detect when another user or users, such as, but not limited to, the users lS0b-d, enter a defined area around the display device 110 using the ID detector 112. The area may be a security parameter that is defined with respect to the display, and may be predefined or dynamically defined [set a size].” Where the security parameter determines how the display is allocated and the security parameter is the security access that the user possesses. See [Column 7 Lines 15-17] “The security parameters may be for example, but not limited to, a security level for viewing the data.” Examiner interprets dynamically defined to mean it is capable of being defined [allocated] or changed or adjusted to accommodate the security level in the display area.
Claim 21
Modified Balakrishna, Spataro and Teng disclose the limitations above. Modified Balakrishna further teaches:
wherein information on the first display area and the second display area or the third display area is displayed simultaneously and is visible to all of the plurality of persons in the operation control center (Balakrishna [Column 8 Lines 55-62]). See “If the secure data display program 122 detects that the second user, e.g., the user 150b, is no longer present and all present users meet the requisite security parameters to view the data 136, the secure data display program 122 proceeds to block 226, where data is displayed.” See also where the regions are the first and second display areas [Column 7 Lines 9-11] “For example, the display device 110 may have a menu which allows the user 150a-d to set the 10 security parameters for each region of the display device.” See [column 3 Lines 45-50] for display areas.
PRIOR ART
Prior art has been withdrawn from claims 6 and 15. The claims remain rejection under 35 USC 101.
Claims 6 and 15
retrieve, from the memory, another user profile of a third person of the plurality of persons, wherein the security access rights and responsibilities of the third person are greater than the security access rights and responsibilities of both the first person and the second person; allocate, on the visual interface, a fourth display area to the third person, wherein the fourth display area is larger than the first display area, the third display area, and the second display area; receive an override request from the third person; and notify the third person of the security event on the fourth display area of the visual interface in response to receiving the override request.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: The amended independent claims include specific technical limitations that integrate facial recognition technology, video stream processing, sensor-based location detection, and dynamic display allocation into a practical application that provide concrete technological improvements to operation control center display systems.
Examiner acknowledges the amendments directed to more technical features however these generic elements are not sufficient to transform the claims into eligible subject matter. The claimed combination of elements and operations amount to a generic, routine and conventional sequence of generic, routine and conventional operations of a computer system.
None of the claims (independent or dependent) effects an improvement to another technology or technical field; nor does any of the claims amount to an improvement to the function of the display device.
Accordingly, Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Applicant argues: This coordinated operation of hardware and software components to achieve real time, automated display configuration based on sensor inputs cannot be performed mentally.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Applicant argues: Applicant further maintains that Applicant's claims are comparable to claims 1 and 2 of
Example 37 ("Relocation of lcons on a Graphical User Interface") of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility examples.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous response. The instant claims are not at all like Example 37 Claims 1 or 2. As currently recited, the claimed subject matter is at best using a general-purpose computer and generic computing elements as a tool, but fails to provide any improvement to said computer or interface. The allocating and positioning are broadly cited and can be performed by any number of methods, including a human determining the security level and allocating the viewing area to match the access level. Example 37 Claim 1 tracks usage and automatically positions icons, the instant application detects a security level and allocates the display area accordingly by generic computing technology (facial recognition and sensors). There is no automatic positioning of the display area, it is merely allocating display area space based on the user access. The Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea of a mental process and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Furthermore, Applicant’s claims of the claims being integrated into a practical application is not supported. Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, allocating display space based on a user access level is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of allocating the access space is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: the Office Action has not articulated what the combined teachings of Balakrishna, Spataro, and Teng would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill regarding the allocation of multiple display areas to multiple authorized persons based on relative physical locations within an operation control center.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Balakrishna et al. states in the abstract “computing device which may detect a first user within a defined area of a display device and the first user may have a first security level.
Spataro et al. states in the abstract “collaboration place that is accessible by a plurality of remote clients and supports a plurality of collaboration activities.” Where remote workers. The server can be configured to provide primary display data to each of a plurality of client computers associated with the authorized users simultaneously accessing the collaboration place to cause each of the plurality of clients to display the primary display data in a primary display of a corresponding collaboration place interface. While Spataro disclose remote location collaboration it is not relied on to teach real life conferencing like Balakrishna et al., Spataro teaches features of collaboration space.
Teng teaches multiple screens with the ability to be accessed by permission ranges.
Applicant argues: Balakrishna prevents unauthorized viewing, while the claims facilitate collaborative security event management among authorized personnel with different security levels and physical positions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract clearly teaches access by security level. See “The computing device may detect a second user within the defined area of the display device and the second user may have a second security level. The computing device may determine that the second security level of the second user does not meet the security parameter for viewing the data and redact the data in response to determining that the second user does not meet the security parameter for viewing the data.” Examiner has combined relevant references in a 103 rejection, so the display on different display areas, while taught by Balakrishna et al. in column four “a white board [display area] may be divided into four quadrants with each quadrant being associated with a different security level and thus only viewable by a user with the requisite security clearance.” It is further taught by the supporting references.
Applicant argues: None of the cited references teach or suggest this dynamic, location-dependent allocation of different display areas to the same person.
Respectfully, Applicant has possession of allocating display areas on a device. See instant specification [0010] “The instructions are further executable to allocate, on the display device, a first display area to the first person and a second display area to the second person based on the locations…” It seems that Applicant is trying to claim that if a user moves to a far corner of the room, the security permissions and display area would move with them. However the display device of figure 2 appears to be allocating space on the same device 102 to the appropriate users, or on the monitor in the room. See Figure 2, 116, 114. The claims however are claiming a visual interface, which does not appear to include the multiple monitors.
Applicant argues: The Office Action cites Balakrishna at Column 3, Lines 45-48 for teaching that a white board may be divided into four quadrants with each quadrant being associated with a different security level and thus only viewable by a user with the requisite security clearance. However, this teaching relates to static security zones on a display, not to dynamic allocation of different display areas to the same person based on that person's changing physical location.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has not found support for the claimed display device NOT being a static display. Figure 2 of the instant application shows a static display device and paragraph [0035] support display areas as regions on a device screen. While the specification does support the display device being different monitors in paragraph [0023], the claims are directed to display areas on a visual interface, which also not clearly defined in the specification and is interpreted to be the display device. If Applicant is seeking to claim a display device that includes the entire room, which the Examiner has not found, Applicant is encourage to respond with claim language and highlighted support.
Applicant argues: Spataro does not teach physical location detection in an operation control center, nor does it teach allocating different display areas to the same person based on that person's different physical locations within a physical space.
Examiner agrees and has not relied on Spataro to teach physical location detection. That is taught by Balakrishna et al.. Spataro et al. teaches screen escalation and display device features.
Applicant argues: Teng's permission differentiation is based on which screen (first or second) is being operated, not on the physical location of users within a physical space. Teng provides no teaching regarding allocating different display areas to the same person based on that person being located in different physical locations.
Teng has not been relied to disclose position specific display area allocation. That is taught by Balakrishna et al. Teng is relied on to disclose security level permissions on a display for resolving issues. Examiner respectfully recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Teng teaches multiple screens with the ability to be accessed by permission ranges.
Conclusion
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626