Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 12/10/2025 where claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending and ready for examination.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant arguments in their entirety (Pages 7 – 11).
The arguments are not persuasive and are based on a mischaracterization of the cited references. The Examiner notes that the cited references, particularly Callabero, teach monitoring and processing user interactions within a gameplay session comprising a sequence of user interactions associated with the same application. Within, such a session, user interactions are continuously received and evaluated. The applicant’s assertion that the system would “stop” or not proceed to a second user interaction after rejecting a first user interaction is unsupported by, and contrary to the cited teachings.
Rather Callabero teaches that user interactions are monitored over the course of gameplay, such that subsequent user interactions are received following prior interactions, including those identified as rejected under defined conditions. Accordingly, the system processes a sequence of user interactions within the same session, including receiving a second user interaction corresponding to the first user interaction.
Further, as set forth in the rejection, Chugunov and Chen teach evaluating interaction data based on temporal characteristics, including time thresholds to determine whether outputs are utilized based on their receipt within a defined time period.
Accordingly, the combined solution provides for receiving second interaction data within a predetermined time period following rejection of a first user interaction and applying the classification model to that second interaction data. As discussed above, the model processes all received user interactions (e.g. user interactions classified as invalid input and user interactions classified as valid input) and determines, based on defined criteria, the appropriate classification for each interaction. Thus, the system classifies the second user interaction as a valid input, when the criteria are satisfied, including when the second interaction data is received within the recited predetermined time period after rejection of the first user interaction.
The Applicant’s arguments improperly isolates individual references and imposes limitations not present in the cited teachings, rather than considering the references in combination as set forth in the rejection.
Nothing in the cited references suggests terminating processing of user interactions upon rejection of a prior interaction.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the cited references teach applying temporal criteria to interaction data such that a determination is made based on interaction data received within a defined time period. Any system that evaluates input data to produce a result necessarily operates on a bounded set of received data, including data received within a defined temporal window, rather than an unbounded or indefinite stream of data. Accordingly, the application of a predetermined time period for evaluating interaction data, as taught by the cited references, provides for making the claimed classification determination based on interaction data received within that time period.
Furthermore, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under such interpretation, the recited “second interaction data ... associated with a second user interaction ... corresponding to the first user interaction” does not require any particular or specialized form of linkage beyond a relationship between interaction data and the corresponding user interaction within the sequence of interactions.
As discussed above, the cited references teach processing sequences of user interactions within the same session, wherein subsequent interaction data is received and corresponds to subsequent user interactions within that sequence. Accordingly, the cited references provide for second interaction data associated with a second user interaction corresponding to a first user interaction, as recited.
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, 7, 9-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Callabero (US 11,559,746) in view of Chugunov (US 2023/0418413) and in further view of Chen (US 2020/0133458) and in further view of Hotelling (US 2006/0026535)
Regarding claim 1, Callabero discloses a method, comprising:
receiving interaction data from an I/O device, wherein the interaction data is associated with a first user interaction (Callabero;
see e.g. Fig. 1 illustrating the reception of user interaction data from a computing device;
see e.g., Column 4, Lines 10 -28
see e.g., Column 3, Lines 8 – 26 “... video game console for playing a video game ...”
see e.g., Column 4, Line 62 – Column 5, Line 11 “... game state data 212 of a gameplay session 211 ... gameplay actions ...”
see e.g. Fig. 6 illustrating a computing device 10 comprising User I/O 34
see e.g. Fig. 4 [Column 18, Line 50 – Column 19, Line2] );
classifying, with a first model and based on the interaction data, the first user interaction as an invalid input (Callabero; Callabero teaches a first model via a machine learning model can classify a sequence of gameplay actions (i.e., first user interaction) as a violation (i.e., invalid input)
see e.g. Column 11, Lines 13 – 36 “... the policy manager 221 can create policies through a machine learning model . in such embodiments, the model can utilize rule-based machine learning (RBML) methods to train a network that receives as input ... gameplay session ... the policy manager 221 can create policies ... a policy can include a rule create using ML ...”
see e.g. Column 18, Lines 12 - 20 “... the system monitors the gameplay sessions to detect violations of the policy by one or more player characters associated with player accounts ...”
see e.g. Column 10, Lines 41 – 56 “A policy can include a number of actions constituting misconduct, including, but not limited to performing repetitive gameplay actions; gameplay interaction; gameplay actions that are modified, controlled, directed, or assisted by software (i.e. cheating software) ...”
); and
rejecting the first user interaction based on classifying the first user interaction as the invalid input;(Callabero; Callabero teaches the first user interaction may be disabled (i.e. rejected and/or pushed out or banned for use during the session of gameplay)
see e.g. Column 17, Lines 13 – 29 “... remediation game state data can be configured with instructions perform one or more of the following changes ... to emphasize the impact of the misconduct ... disabling one or more gameplay actions for the player character ... among other things ...”);
receiving, after rejecting the first user interaction, second interaction data from the I/O device, wherein the second interaction data is associated with a second user interaction, the second user interaction corresponding to the first user interaction (Callabero; Callabero teaches monitoring and processing a sequence of user interactions within a gameplay session, wherein user interactions are continuously received from the I/O device over the course of the session (Column 11, Lines 13 – 36; Column 18, Lines 12 – 20; Column 10, Lines 41 – 56, Column 7, Lines 1-9). Within this sequence, after a first user interaction is identified as a violation and rejected, the system continues to receive subsequent interaction data from the I/O device corresponding to further user interactions within the same gameplay session.
Accordingly, Callabero provides for receiving, after rejecting the first user interaction, second interaction data from the I/O device, as recited.
Further the received interaction data in Callabero are tied to the corresponding user interaction occurring within the gameplay session sequence. Thus, the reference teaches that the second interaction data is associated with a second user interaction, as recited.
Additionally, because the user interaction occurs within the same gameplay session and interaction sequence as the first user interaction, the second user interaction corresponds to the first user interaction in that both are part of the same sequence of user interactions within the same application context. Accordingly, Callabero teaches the second user, interaction corresponding to the first user interaction, as recited.);
Callabero does not address all classifications of touch inputs (“The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process”) and therefore does not expressly disclose:
determining an operation mode for the I/O device, wherein the operating mode identifies a particular application among a plurality of different applications for receiving touch-based user input on the I/O device, the particular application associated with the first user interaction;
classifying, with a first model and based on the interaction data and the operating mode wherein the invalid input comprises an accidental input that is not intended as user input, wherein the accidental input comprises a contact on a touch surface of the I/O device that has been received for more than a predetermined period;
classifying, by the first model, the second user interaction as a valid input based on the second interaction data and based on receiving the second interaction data within a second predetermined time period after rejecting the first user interaction.
However in analogous art Chugunov discloses:
wherein the invalid input comprises an accidental input that is not intended as user input (Chugunov; Chugunov teaches the detection of accidental inputs generated by user input;
see e.g. [0154] “... if the detected touch input fails to match any of the of the predefined set of touch gestures, the detected touch input is rejected as accidental, or non-conforming, or not recognized touch inputs ...)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Callabero in view of Chugunov does not expressly disclose:
determining an operation mode for the I/O device, wherein the operating mode identifies a particular application among a plurality of different applications for receiving touch-based user input on the I/O device, the particular application associated with the first user interaction;
classifying , with a first model and based on the interaction data and the operating mode wherein the accidental input comprises a contact on a touch surface of the I/O device that has been received for more than a predetermined period.
classifying, by the first model, the second user interaction as a valid input based on the second interaction data and based on receiving the second interaction data within a second predetermined time period after rejecting the first user interaction.
However in analogous art Chen discloses:
wherein the accidental input comprises a contact on a touch surface of the I/O device that has been received for more than a predetermined period (Chen;
see e.g. [0131]“... when a residence time period of touch point on the touchscreen is greater than 30ms, the electronic device determines the touch point as an accidental input”
The Examiner notes 30ms is equivalent to a predetermined period
See e.g. [0051] “ ... any electronic device provided with a touchscreen, such as a mobile phone ... tablet computer, a notebook computer, a UMPC (ultra-mobile personal computer, ultra-mobile personal computer), a netbook ... PDA ...”
See e.g. [0054])
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen disclose:
classifying, with a first model and based on the interaction data, the first user interaction as an invalid input, wherein the invalid input comprises an accidental input that is not intended as user input, wherein the accidental input comprises a contact on a touch surface of the I/O device that has been received for more than a predetermined period (The combined solution provides for classification within the context of invalid input comprising accidental inputs associated with a temporal characteristic represented by a predetermined period);
classifying, by the first model, the second user interaction as a valid input based on the second interaction data and based on receiving the second interaction data within a second predetermined time period after rejecting the first user interaction (As set forth above, Callabero teaches receiving and processing sequences of user interactions within a gameplay session, including receiving subsequent interaction data following identification and rejection of a prior interaction (Callabero; Column 11, Lines 13 – 36; Column 18, Lines 12 – 20; Column 10, Lines 41 – 56, Column 7, Lines 1-9). Chen further teaches evaluating interaction data based on temporal characteristics, including determining input based on whether the interaction is received for greater than a predetermined time period (Chen, [0131])
Accordingly, the combined teachings of Callabero and Chen provide for classifying, by the model, the second user interaction as a valid input based on the second interaction data within a second predetermined time period after rejecting the first user interaction.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the model evaluates all received user interactions (e.g. interactions classified as invalid input and interactions classified as valid input) under the same classification criteria, thereby providing for classification as a valid input, when the criteria are classified.
The cited references teach (i) rejecting a first user interaction based on classification, (ii) receiving subsequent interaction data within the same session, and (iii) evaluating interaction data using temporal criteria. Accordingly, the combined solution classifies the second user interaction as a valid input based on the second interaction data and based on receiving the second interaction data within a predetermined time period after rejecting the first user interaction.
The cited references teach evaluating user interactions against defined criterial to determine whether each interaction is acceptable. Such evaluation distinguishes between interactions that satisfy the criteria and those that do not. Accordingly, the same classification process that identifies a first user interaction as invalid input also provides for classifying a second user interaction as a valid input when the criteria are classified.
The Examiner further notes that as reflected in the cited references, the model is applied to user interaction data as such data is received, such that all received user interactions (e.g. user interactions classified as invalid input and user interactions classified as valid input) are evaluated under the same classification framework)
.
Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen does not expressly disclose:
determining an operation mode for the I/O device, wherein the operating mode identifies a particular application among a plurality of different applications for receiving touch-based user input on the I/O device, the particular application associated with the first user interaction;
and classifying with respect to the operating mode;
However in analogous art Hotelling discloses:
determining an operation mode for the I/O device, wherein the operating mode identifies a particular application among a plurality of different applications for receiving touch-based user input on the I/O device, the particular application associated with the first user interaction;
(Hotelling;
See e.g. [0143] “Once a touch is detected, the user interface method 800 proceeds to block 804 where a user interface (UI) mode is determined in response to the touch. The user interface mode may be widely varied. The user interface mode may include navigation modes, scroll modes, data entry modes, edit modes, control modes, information modes, display modes, etc. Each mode typically has one or more GUI interface elements associated therewith. By way of example, a virtual scroll wheel (e.g., FIG. 27) or slider bar may be associated with a scroll mode, a keyboard (e.g., FIG. 25) or keypad may be associated with data entry mode, a tool bar such as a formatting tool bar or drawing tool bar may be associated with an edit mode, a control panel including buttons may be associated with a control mode, a window may be associated with an information mode, etc.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the “operating mode” of the I/O device corresponds to the “user interface mode” Upon detecting a touch (i.e. the first user interaction), the system determines which operating mode to enter. This satisfies the requirement that the operating mode is determined in association with the first user interaction.
See e.g. [0144] “The user interface mode may be determined at block 804 based on one or more conditions including for example, one or more applications currently running on the computing device, the current state or mode of the one or more applications and/or the touch characteristics associated with the touch. In fact, determining the user interface mode at block 804 may involve monitoring and analyzing one or more conditions”
Hotelling ties the determination of the operating mode directly to the applications currently running. Thus the operating mode is not an abstract state, it is identified based on the particular application. This meets the requirement that the operating mode identifies a particular application among a plurality of applications.
See e.g. [0148] “ The current state or mode of the applications may correspond to an active portion of the application (e.g., current window or windows within windows). For example, the active portion of a music management program may correspond to a music control mode, a playlist select mode, a menu mode, and/or the like. Further, the active portion of a photo management program may correspond to photo browsing mode or photo editing mode. Further still, the active portion of an internet interface program may correspond to a web mode or an email mode”
Hotteling teaches different applications corresponds to different operating odes. A word processor/spreadsheet corresponds to a data entry mode, while a music program corresponds to scrolling or control mode. This satisfies the limitation requiring the operating mode to identify a particular application among a plurality of different applications.
See e.g. [0151] “ cite a few examples, if the application is a word processing or spreadsheet program then the mode may be determined to be a data entry mode so that data can be entered into the spreadsheet (e.g., keyboard). If the application is a music management program and a playlist is currently showing (active portion), the mode may be determined to be a scroll mode so that the items in the list may be scrolled through in order to find a desired item (e.g., scroll wheel). Alternatively, if a song is playing (active portion), the mode may be determined to be a control mode so that the manner in which songs are played can be controlled (e.g., play, stop, seek and volume control options). Further, if the application is a photo management program and a particular photo is displayed (active portion), the mode may be determined to be a control mode so that the photo can be modified (e.g., converting to black and white, removing red eye, and rotate options).L
Hotteling in [0151] provides concrete examples showing that the operating mode is determined by the particular application:
Word processing/spreadsheet [Wingdings font/0xE0] data entry mode
Music manager (playlist active) [Wingdings font/0xE0] scroll mode
Music manager (song playing) [Wingdings font/0xE0] control mode
Photo manager [Wingdings font/0xE0] control mode (photo editing)
This directly meets the limitation requiring that the operating mode identifies a particular application among a plurality. Importantly it also discloses embodiments using a scroll wheel, which aligns with the applicant’s own specification ([0059])
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling disclose:
classifying, with a first model and based on the interaction data and the operating mode, the first user interaction as an invalid input, wherein the invalid input comprises an accidental input that is not intended as user input, wherein the accidental input comprises a contact on a touch surface of the I/O device that has been received for more than a predetermined period (The combined solution per Hotelling provides for classifying with models based on interaction data and operating modes)
Regarding claim 7, Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
updating the first model based on the second user interaction (Callabero; As Callabero teaches machine learning models, machine learning by definition provides for continuously updating the machine learning model and where the updating includes the second user interaction).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
Regarding claim 9, Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the I/O device is a gaming controller (Callabero;
see e.g., Column 3, Lines 8 – 26 “... video game console for playing a video game ...”
see e.g. Fig. 6 illustrating a computing device 10 comprising User I/O 34).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-4 , 11-13, and 17 - 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling and in further view of Lutsynshyn (US 2023/0396568)
Regarding claim 2, Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling disclose the method of claim 1, Callabero does not expressly disclose further comprising, prior to classifying the first user interaction:
selecting the first model based on the operating mode of the I/O device.
However in analogous art Lutsyshyn discloses:
selecting the first model based on the operating mode of the I/O device (Lutsyshyn; Lutsyshyn teaches the selection of machine learning model based upon the context;
see e.g. [0005] “... the processor may select a machine learning model and technique that is specific to error log messages ...”
see e.g. [0004] “... the processor may determine the context of how the messages were received (e.g. as part of a thread or as individual messages), select the machine learning model that is associated with the context ...
See e.g. [0026] “... error log messages that may be generated during an application debugging process ...”
See MPEP 2144.04 Section IV : C)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lutasyshyn’s contextual based scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in processing.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
.
Regarding claim 3, Callabero in view of Chunugov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling and in further view of Lutsynshyn disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the operating mode is determined based on context information regarding a computing process executing on a computing device associated with the I/O device (The combined solution per Lutsynshyn provides for context based on applications (ie. computing processes) residing on a computing device (e.g. I/O device )
See e.g. [0026] “... error log messages that may be generated during an application debugging process ...”
see e.g. [0005] “... the processor may select a machine learning model and technique that is specific to error log messages ...”
see e.g. [0004] “... the processor may determine the context of how the messages were received (e.g. as part of a thread or as individual messages), select the machine learning model that is associated with the context ...”
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lutasyshyn’s contextual based scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in processing.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
Regarding claim 4, Callabero in view of Chunugov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling and in further view of Lutsynshyn disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the operating mode identifies a particular application or operational profile for at least a portion of the I/O device (The combined solution per Lutsynshyn provides for acting upon an identified application with associated error processing (i.e. operational profile) that is directly associated with at least a portion of the computing device;
See e.g. [0026] “... error log message may be objective as certain errors may mor directly describe the problem an application is facing ... error log messages that may be generated during an application debugging process ...”
see e.g. [0005] “... the processor may select a machine learning model and technique that is specific to error log messages ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lutasyshyn’s contextual based scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in processing.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling and in further view of Kurabayashi (US 2018/0333644)
Regarding claim 6, Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling disclose the method of claim 1, Callabero does not expressly disclose wherein the interaction data includes a time series of touch data measured by a touch surface of the I/O device.
However in analogous art Kurabayashi discloses:
wherein the interaction data includes a time series of touch data measured by a touch surface of the I/O device (Kurabayashi;
see e.g. [0021] “a second obtaining means for obtaining operation history information representing a time series of touch operations from the terminal”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kurabayashi’s touch data acquisition scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in detecting invalid inputs.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Callabero in view Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling and in further view of Fiedler (US 2013/0095931)
Regarding claim 8, Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the invalid input is an input received from a user that is not intended to be received by a computing device coupled to the I/O device (Callabero
See e.g. Column 10, Lines 41 – 56 “... misconduct ... gameplay actions ... game state or gameplay session from other players or spectators of a gameplay session (i.e., collusion or “stream sniping” )
As evidence of the above rationale with respect to coupled devices, Fiedler discloses:
A computing device coupled to the I/O device (Fiedler;
See e.g. [0073] “... managing a multiplayer video game on game consoles, personal computer, or other machines connected in a peer – to – peer network architecture, Any type of computing devices can be networked together for the game, such a personal computers, game consoles, handheld digital assistants, cellular phones, dedicated gamed devices, and other electronic game devices”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fielder’s networking scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in networking game consoles together (i.e., coupling)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling and in further view of Weksler (US 20210216138)
Regarding claim 21, Callabero in view of Chugunov and in further view of Chen and in further view of Hotelling disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the classifying, by the first model, the second user interaction as the valid input is further based on the second interaction data having changed by a predetermined amount with respect to the interaction data associated with the first user interaction (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited “change by a predetermined amount” encompasses that the second interaction data differs from the first interaction data with respect to features evaluated by the model according to predefined criteria. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Callabero teaches processing user interactions data using a model that evaluate the interaction data to determine whether it is valid or invalid. This evaluation is necessarily based on characteristics of the interaction data (e.g. input features or patterns) assessed against the model’s criteria. Where a first interaction is classified as invalid and a second interaction is classified as valid, the underlying interaction data must differ with respect to those evaluated characteristics in a manner sufficient to satisfy the model’s predefined criteria. Accordingly, the change between the first and second interaction data corresponds to a predetermined amount as recited.
As evidence of the rationale above, Weksler discloses:
predetermined amount (Weksler; Weksler teaches detecting user input based on a threshold number of occurrences ([0031]). This demonstrates that applying predefined threshold criteria to user interaction data is tool readily available for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether particular input conditions (i.e. predetermined amount) are satisfied.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply such threshold -based evaluation to interaction data in Callabero, whereby differences in interaction data that satisfy predefined criteria correspond to a predetermined amount.
[0031] In some embodiments, the code is executable by the processor to disable an input device in response to determining that the determined application window that corresponds to the determined location of the user's eye gaze does not have focus. In one embodiment, the code is executable by the processor to receive the input in response to one or more of detecting that the user provided the input a threshold number of times and the user pressed a shift key to provide the input.)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Weksler’s threshold criteria scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chugunov’s classification scheme. The motivation being the classification provides for increased user experience while operating user devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s accidental input touch scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased User Experience.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hotelling’s UI scheme associated with operating modes and applications. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of application services.
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 TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights