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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 07/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 36 and the similarly amended independent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Upon further consideration, the previously cited prior art reference(s) Troyer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20160048307) does address the new amended limitations set forth within independent claim(s) 36. Therefore, new rejections have been formulated to address the limitations as set forth in independent claim 36 and the similarly amended independent and their respective dependent claims.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding capturing a user's physical movement. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Troyer teach para. 2, “various techniques for dynamically displaying and changing elements for user interaction with a device based on a device location are presented”…, “The request may also include location information identifying a geographic location of the user's client system 1130 or a logical network location of the user's client system 1130 (read as: smart phone or other cellular or mobile phone, see para. 153). The request may also include a timestamp identifying when the request was transmitted” (See para. 155 and Fig. 7); for further clarification Zhao teaches, ******* (See para. 45 and Fig. 7). The examiner respectfully disagrees since in the applicant’s claim 36 there is no defined user's physical movement, in fact the Applicant defines that user's physical movement is “…capture all user interactions with the UE 110. Such interactions include, but are not limited to touch interactions (e.g., display tap, display swipe, control button activation, etc.), movement of the UE 110.” (applicant’s specification para. 53). Therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language in particular to the applicant’s “user's physical movement” the examiner equates that dynamically obtaining the geographic location of the user’s equipment location of Troyer teach movement of the UE 110 (specification page 53). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Troyer to teach this concept. Thus, Troyer still meet the scope of the limitations.
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 of this title, 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) 36-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troyer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20160048307) in view of Gand et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200159323).
Regarding claim 36 Troyer disclose, a method to enable user-specific network analytics for application data services provided to a user equipment (UE) by a wireless network, the method performed by the UE and comprising:
establishing a user’s physical movement overlay for the UE para. 8, Fig. 4, “user interface display”;
capturing a user's physical movement with an application on the UE using the user’s physical movement overlay para. 2, “various techniques for dynamically displaying and changing elements for user interaction with a device based on a device location are presented”, para. 155, “The request may also include location information identifying a geographic location of the user's client system 1130 or a logical network location of the user's client system 1130. The request may also include a timestamp identifying when the request was transmitted”,
said application configured to provide an application data service to the UE via the wireless network responsive to the captured user’s physical movement para. 124, “the analytics performed at the game server may include analyzing the user inputs to determine patterns in user behavior”; and
forwarding user activity data for the captured user’s physical movement to a centralized application node in the wireless network to trigger user-specific network analytics for the application data service para. 124, “As a user input is received at the user interface, the user interface may send a message to the game server indicating the unique identifier of the dialog and the user's activity”,
said user activity data comprising a UE identifier, information regarding the captured user’s physical movement para. 124, “each dialog in a user interface is associated with a unique identifier to be referenced when tracking and analyzing data”, and at least one identifier for the corresponding application data service para. 137, “The database system 900 may include a database storage 902 that stores or manages information associated with the display and use of dynamic dialogs and user interface views”.
Troyer does not specifically disclose, wherein the user’s physical movement overlay is independent of a user interface of the application data service, and is visually and functionally transparent to a user of the UE. However, Gand teach, para. 179, “stores and displays independently in the computer user interface via machine-learning algorithms external content in a digital form to an end-user based on the physical health of the end-user at the time of interaction between the end-user and the computer operating system”.
Troyer and Gand are analogous because they pertain to the field of network communications and, more specifically, to techniques of managing user interface parameters and function execution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gand in the system of Troyer to be able to manipulate and modify the information being used for several tasks without the direct interaction of the user in the process by any interface. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the that the system can perform autonomous functions that do not require the user intervention.
Regarding claim 37 Troyer disclose, wherein establishing the user’s physical movement overlay comprises establishing a single user’s physical movement overlay for the UE para. 37, “FIG. 4 is an interface diagram illustrating an example user interface layout of elements in a dynamic user interface. As illustrated, dialog 400 provides a display of both graphical and textual information”.
Regarding claim 38 Troyer disclose, wherein: establishing the user’s physical movement overlay comprises establishing a plurality of user’s physical movement overlay segments for the UE para. 37, “including a series of framed panels 410, 420, and 430 each including various text and graphics, and with portions of the panels nested over each other in view (as shown, panel 410 partially overlapping panel 420, and panel 430 entirely overlapping and centered on panel 420)”; and
capturing the user’s physical movement comprises capturing, using one or more of the plurality of user’s physical movement overlay segments, the user’s physical movement with the application on the UE para. 37, “Panel 430 further includes a dialog button 440 entirely overlapping the panel 430”.
Regarding claim 39 Troyer disclose, wherein establishing the plurality of user’s physical movement overlay segments comprises establishing the plurality of user’s physical movement overlay segments according to a uniform grid para. 110, “Visual elements have no behavior characteristics, whereas controller elements define the behavior of visual elements. One example of pairing includes a positioning grid controller that lays out content”.
Regarding claim 40 Troyer disclose, further comprising determining a portion of a display of the UE involved in the user’s physical movement responsive to a location of the one or more of the plurality of user’s physical movement overlay segments used to capture the user’s physical movement para. 37, “including a series of framed panels 410, 420, and 430 each including various text and graphics, and with portions of the panels nested over each other in view (as shown, panel 410 partially overlapping panel 420, and panel 430 entirely overlapping and centered on panel 420)”.
Regarding claim 41 Troyer disclose, wherein the user’s physical movement overlay passes the captured user’s physical movement to the application on the UE para. 41, “The various display techniques described herein may also be used to integrate with third party application programming interfaces (APIs), such as showing a feed popup from a third party social networking system in connection with dialogs and other displays”.
Regarding claim 42 Troyer disclose, wherein the user’s physical movement overlay processes the captured user’s physical movement for the application para. 142, “A client application, such as a browser, will request these additional data objects as it parses or otherwise processes the first data object”.
Regarding claim 43 Troyer disclose, further comprising: identifying the captured user’s physical movement as either requiring a network response or as not requiring a network response para. 1391, “The client system 1030 can receive and transmit data 1023 to and from the game networking system 1020B. Data 1023 may include, for example, web pages, messages, game inputs, game displays, HTTP packets, data requests, transaction information, updates, and other suitable data”;
wherein forwarding the user activity data comprises only forwarding the user activity data to the centralized application node when the captured user’s physical movement is identified as requiring a network response para. 139, “At some other time, or at the same time, the game networking system 1020B can communicate data 1043, 1047 (e.g., game state information, game system account information, page info, messages, data requests, updates, etc.) with other networking systems”.
Regarding claim 44 Troyer disclose, wherein the user’s physical movement comprises: a voice command received by the UE; and/or a user’s physical movement with a display of the UE; and/or a user’s physical movement with a control button of the UE; and/or a movement of the UE para. 19, “For example, a dialog displayed in a user interface may or may not provide an input for user textual input, provide one or more selectable options to receive interaction from a user”.
Regarding claim 45 Troyer disclose, wherein the information regarding the captured user’s physical movement comprises a trigger indicating that one or more user’s physical movements with the application occurred para. 124, “As a user input is received at the user interface, the user interface may send a message to the game server indicating the unique identifier of the dialog and the user's activity (e.g., the user input)”.
Regarding claim 46 Troyer teaches, a user equipment (UE) read as: “mobile phone” for enabling user-specific network analytics for application data services provided to the UE by a wireless network, the UE comprising: processing circuitry read as: “a processor 1202” and memory circuitry read as: “, the memory circuitry read as: “system memory 1214” storing instructions executable by the processing circuitry; furthermore claim 46 recites an apparatus corresponding to the system of claim 36 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 36.
Regarding claims 47-54 the limitations of claims 47-54, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 37-44, respectively.
Claim 55 recites a computer–program product corresponding to the apparatus of claim 46 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 46.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights