DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 26 June 2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. No claim has been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 August 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that [“To expedite the prosecution, claims 1, 7-8, and 14-15 are amended herein” (Page 7 )]. Examiner notes that only claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended in the latest response to the last Final Office Action. Those amendments are considered henceforth.
Applicant further argues that [“As submitted before and above, Mierau's animated menu button (302) that grows and emanates different menu items (308) each presenting a different function is a result of running the process 200 described by Mierau. However, the entire process 200, as described by Mierau, does not involve "programmatically transforming a selectable object from the first function to the second function." Indeed, Mierau is explicitly silent in disclosing any such "selectable object," let along programmatically transforming a non-existent object "from the first function to the second function." This fundamental deficiency is not remedied by Hong, even if Hong teaches "a menu item that grows in size." That is, the combined teachings of Mierau and Hong do not teach a person of ordinary skill in the art any "selectable object" that can be programmatically transformed "from the first function to the second function." Consequently, the ordered combination expressly recited in claim 1” (Page 10)].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. HONG is the primary reference and is cited to teach “programmatically transforming a selectable object from the first function to the second function”. For example, par. 100 of HONG recites “FIG. 10 is a flowchart depicting a dynamic button flow 1000 in accordance with an example embodiment. At operation 1002, the dynamic button flow 1000 begins. This may include rendering the dynamic button in a graphical user interface. At operation 1004, a click command is received from a user via the graphical user interface. This click command indicates selection of the dynamic button ... At operation 1006, morphing is performed to change the dynamic button into two sub-buttons, an action sub-button and a cancel sub-button. At operation 1008, the user has selected the cancel sub-button and the dynamic button flow 1000 returns to operation 1002. Alternatively, at operation 1010 the user has selected the action sub-button, and at operation 1012, the action sub-button morphs and is traced (the looping effect described earlier) while the underlying application action is executed” (emphasis added) [see also claim 1 rejection below for further references within HONG]. On the other hand, MIERAU is cited to teach for teaching a dialog menu that when the first icon (selectable object) is selected, other selectable menu items are formed (see claim 1 rejection below). Therefore, contrary to the applicants argument, HONG is cited for teaching “programmatically transforming a selectable object from the first function to the second function”. MIERAU is combined to teach the limitation regarding the “dialog menu having dialog menu items representing different functions”, and NOT “programmatically transforming a selectable object from the first function to the second function” [see claim 1 rejection below for more details].
Applicant further argues that [“Accordingly, motivation to combine Mierau and Hong notwithstanding, at least the finding of "all the claimed elements were known in the prior art" cannot be made. Since at least the finding of "all the claimed elements were known in the prior art" cannot be made against claim 1, the Examiner's rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art” (Page 11 )].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obviousness can 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. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). HONG teaches a menu item (representing a first UI element) that when clicked, morphs (transforms) and grows in size depicting 2 menu items (representing a second UI element) (e.g. see HONG figs. 2D-2I, par. 100). MIERAU teaches an animated menu icon (button) that when clicked, emanates different selectable menu items each presenting a different function (see MIERAU figs. 3B-3E). Thus, it is HONG that is cited for teaching the “programmatically first selectable UI element that transforms into a second selectable UI element”, while MIERAU is cited for teaching a “dialog menu that when the first icon (selectable object) is selected, other selectable menu items are formed (see rejection of claim 1, below).
The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
Thus, the combination of HONG and MIERAU adequately discloses applicant's claimed limitation. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicants that during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG (US20170329465A1) in view of MIERAU et al. (US9448692B1).
As to independent claim 1, HONG teaches a method, comprising: detecting, by a computer, that a selectable object on a user interface has been selected via the user interface (See figs. 2B-3, e.g. fig. 2B, par. 0043, wherein when the user selects dynamic button 206A, as will be depicted in subsequent figures, first a ripple effect may be depicted around dynamic button 206A to indicate that selection has occurred. This selection may have occurred, for example, by the user depressing a mouse button while the cursor hovered over dynamic button 206A; as taught by HONG),
the selectable object displaying a first function (See fig. 3, par. 0050, wherein the rendering may include rendering the dynamic button in a manner that an application action caused by selection of the dynamic button is conveyed. This may include, for example, placing the title of the application action (e.g., delete, add, etc.) in the rendering of the dynamic button, but could also or alternatively include using symbols to indicate the application action (e.g., an “X” with a circle to denote deletion); as taught by HONG),
the selectable object configured with transformable UI elements and having a graphical outline representing a first UI element defining a size and shape of the selectable object (See fig. 2B, par. 0041, wherein dynamic buttons 206A-206D is provided for each of the four products 204A-204D. Here, the dynamic button 206A-206D is initially depicted as an “X” surrounded by a circle, said circle encompassing an initial size and shape; as taught by HONG);
responsive to the detecting, programmatically transforming, by the computer, the selectable object from the first function to a second function (See figs. 2D-2H, items 206A, 214A-214B, par. 0042, wherein selection of the dynamic button 206A-206D causes a sequence of operations, including operations causing the selected dynamic button 206A-206D to morph into a different shape that provides the opportunity for the user to execute the confirmation action from within the dynamic button 206A-206D itself; as taught by HONG);
and in conjunction with the programmatically transforming, displaying, by the computer via the user interface, an animated transition in which the graphical outline of the selectable object gradually increases in size and changes in shape representing a second UI element such that the programmatically transforming of the selectable object from the first function to the second function is visualized via the user interface (See figs. 2D-2K, items 206A, 214A-214B and fig. 10, par. 0042, wherein transition animations may be used to convey to the user that selection of the button has occurred as well as to indicate that the button is not being removed, and the graphical outline encompassing the button actually morphs (animates) into a different size and shape (from a circle to a capsule shape); see also par. 0045, wherein referring now to FIG. 2D, the dynamic button 206A then begins to expand, pushing neighboring button 212 towards the left as the dynamic button 206A enlarges to the left. In FIG. 2E, the dynamic button 206A continues to grow, and the “X” in the dynamic button 206A begins to fade. Also fading is the neighboring button 212; see also par. 0046, wherein referring to FIG. 2F, two sub-buttons 214A, 214B containing text have started to fade-in inside the dynamic button 206A. In FIG. 2G, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B have completely faded in, revealing the text “Delete” and “Cancel”, respectively, indicating the functions of the sub-buttons 214A, 214B. Notably, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B have both formed within the area of the dynamic button 206A; see also par. 100; as taught by HONG).
HONG does not expressly teach to form a new dialog menu having dialog menu items representing different functions of the new dialog menu.
In similar field of endeavor, MIERAU teaches to form a new dialog menu having dialog menu items representing different functions of the new dialog menu (see Figs. 3A-3E, col. 6, ll. 24-34, wherein FIGS. 3C, 3D, and 3E together illustrate an example animation of sub-menu icons 308 emanating outward from the menu icon 302 and moving along predefined paths on the user interface of the touch-sensitive screen. In particular, each of the FIGS. 3C, 3D, and 3E show the different sub-menu icons 308 at different positions while moving towards their predefined destination positions. In particular, FIG. 3C shows the positions of the sub-menu icons 308 at a time t1. FIG. 3D shows the positions of the sub-menu icons 308 at a time t2 following t1. FIG. 3E shows the positions of the sub-menu icons 308 at a time t3 following t2; see also col. 7, ll. 34-49, wherein responsive to detecting the user contact corresponding to the sub-menu icon, a composer interface associated with the sub-menu icon for posting content to the social networking system is displayed. In some embodiments, the associated composer interface is an interface for posting media items to the social networking system. The media items may include pictures, video files, and audio files. In some embodiments, the associated composer interface is an interface for posting information about the viewing user's location to the social networking system. In some embodiments, the associated composer interface is an interface for posting a message or some other text based content to the social networking system. In some embodiments, the associated interface is an interface for posting information to the social networking system indicating who the viewing user is currently with; as taught by MIERAU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HONG’s invention to include the teachings of MIERAU to form a new dialog menu having dialog menu items representing different functions of the new dialog menu.
Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is a significant challenge to design user interfaces for portable computing devices. In particular, due to limited screen sizes, many portable computing devices are restricted in the number of functionalities that they are able to offer their users. So, there is a need for more transparent and intuitive user interfaces for portable computing devices that are easy to use, configure, and/or adapt (MIERAU, col. 1, ln. 20). Adding MIERAU’s teachings would also serve to offer an alternate and more familiar way for users to deal with selectable objects and menu selection.
As to claim 2, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 1. HONG further teaches wherein the selectable object is generated using a transformable shape having editable properties (See figs. 14A-14E, par. 0111, wherein FIGS. 14A-14E are diagrams illustrating development of an iOS™ application (also known as an “app”) with a dynamic button, in accordance with an example embodiment. The iOS™ app can be developed using Swift in Xcode. The app can be run in either a device simulator or in an actual connected device. In both cases, Xcode automatically configures the app and desired extension bundles and their initial resources; as taught by HONG).
As to claim 3, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 1. Hong further teaches an initial “x” symbol which gradually fades as it is replaced by menu items “DELETE” and “CANCEL”.
MIERAU further teaches wherein the selectable object comprises a symbol and wherein the animated transition shows that the symbol changes from an initial “+” to an “x” which corresponds to the selectable object being programmatically transformed from the first function to the second function (see Figs. 3A-3B, col. 5, ln. 65 – col. 6, ln. 3, in response to detecting the contact at the predefined location, an animation of the menu icon is displayed on the touch-sensitive screen for a predefined period of time. The animation may show the menu icon rotating for the predefined period of time [i.e. the ‘+’ sign in fig. 3A rotates to become the sign ‘x’ in fig. 3B]; as taught by Mierau). It is noted that Mierau’s resulting “x” persists on the screen (i.e. does not fade from view).
As to claim 4, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 3. HONG further teaches when a user selects “Cancel”, the dynamic button initiates an animation reversal, including shrinking of the button outline accordingly (see HONG Figs. 2K, 2L, 2J, par. 0049). HONG does not specifically teach reversal based upon initial selection of “x”.
MIERAU further teaches detecting that the symbol “x” has been selected, programmatically transforming the selectable object from the second function to the first function and programmatically transforming of the selectable object from the second function to first second function is visualized via the user interface on the user device (see Figs. 3F-3G, col. 6, ll. 47-55, If the viewing user decides not to use any of the sub-menu icons, the viewing user may collapse the sub-menu icons into the menu icon by making a subsequent contact with the menu icon. If the viewing user makes contact with the menu icon while the sub-menu icons are displayed on the user interface, the sub-menu icons travel back (or return) along the predefined paths toward the menu icon so that once the sub-menu icons return back to the menu icon each sub-menu icon ceases to display on the user interface; as taught by Mierau).
As to claim 5, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 3. MIERAU further teaches wherein the animated transition comprises a first stage and a second stage, wherein the symbol “+” is displayed during the first stage of the animated transition, and wherein the symbol “x” is displayed during the second stage of the animated transition (see Figs. 3A-3C, col. 5, ll. 50-54, as shown in FIG. 3A, the menu icon 302 may be graphically overlaid over a feed 304 received from a social networking system and displayed on a touch-sensitive screen; see also col. 6, ll. 1-3, The animation may show the menu icon rotating for the predefined period of time. An example of a rotated menu icon 302 is shown in FIG. 3B; see also col. 6, ll. 19-23, The menu icon 302 does not change position relative to its location on the user interface of the screen, but may rotate clockwise or counter clockwise while the sub-menu icons emanate outward from the menu icon; see also col. 6, ll. 24-34, FIGS. 3C, 3D, and 3E. In other words, the “+” symbol is initially displayed (i.e. a first stage), and the resulting “x” symbol is displayed subsequent to a rotation animation (i.e. a second stage). This sequence is applied to Hong’s graphical button outline expansion as previously described.
As to claim 6, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 3. MIERAU further teach wherein the symbol “+” is displayed at a position during the first stage of the animated transition and wherein the symbol “x” is displayed in place at the position during the second stage of the animated transition, while the graphical outline of the selectable object gradually increases in size and changes in shape (see Figs. 3A-3F, col. 6, ll. 19-23, The menu icon 302 does not change position relative to its location on the user interface of the screen, but may rotate clockwise or counter clockwise while the sub-menu icons emanate outward from the menu icon; as taught by Mierau). In other words, the “+” symbol is initially displayed (i.e. a first stage), and the resulting “x” symbol is displayed subsequent to a rotation animation (i.e. a second stage). This sequence is applied to Hong’s graphical button outline expansion as previously described.
As to claim 7, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 1. HONG further teaches wherein the displaying further comprises displaying a dialog menu inside the graphical outline of the selectable object (see fig. 2G, par. 0046, wherein Referring to FIG. 2F, two sub-buttons 214A, 214B containing text have started to fade-in inside the dynamic button 206A. In FIG. 2G, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B have completely faded in, revealing the text “Delete” and “Cancel”, respectively, indicating the functions of the sub-buttons 214A, 214B. Notably, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B have both formed within the area of the dynamic button 206A (inside the graphical outline). In the underlying user interface, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B are both part of the UI element dedicated to the dynamic button 206A, and thus are not independent UI elements from the dynamic button 206A, such as would be the case if sub-buttons 214A, 214B had replaced dynamic button 206A or been overlaid on top of dynamic button 206A; as taught by HONG).
As to independent claim 8, claim 8 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 9 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 10 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 3 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 11 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 4 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 12 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 5 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 13 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 6 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 14 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 7 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
As to independent claim 15, claim 15 amounts to the computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 16 amounts to the computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 17 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 3 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 18 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 4 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 19 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 5 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 20 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 6 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Publication Number
Filing Date
Title
US20170329464A1
2016-11-10
Dynamic button with sub-buttons
US9798450B1
2012-10-09
Multi-function graphical user interface button
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 KOOROSH NEHCHIRI whose telephone number is (408)918-7643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-7 PST.
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, William L. Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/KOOROSH NEHCHIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights