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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 7/2/2025.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-13 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 19-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed on 7/2/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-18 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1. Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor (s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation "wherein the processor is further configured to resume the preemptive caching if the predicted intent of the user increases above a threshold.” was not described in specifications, drawings and figures. This language is not support by the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter.
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 7/2/2025 has been entered.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badr (US 20220207093 A1) in view of Jung (US 20090113298 A1) in view of Leekin (US 20200153696 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed, perform a method for performing a caching action based on end-user cues, the method comprising:
Badr teaches predicting the intent of the user based on the indication and historical information; (Badr, [0010], [0035], [0049], Fig.2; the user intent prediction system 110 may determine whether or not to precache the additional content that is selected at block 230 based on the predicted intent of the user that is determined at block 220. Determining intent of the user based on the device activity history of the user. The device activity history of the user includes webpage navigation history of the user, searches of the user, applications accessed by the user, application states of the applications accessed by the user, or messages sent or received by the user. [examiner notes: applications accessed by the user interprets to be the indication. Webpage navigation history of the user interprets to be historical information.])
initiating preemptive caching of additional content corresponding to a webpage having content; and (Badr, [0010], [0035]- [0037], [0049], Fig.2; the user intent prediction system 110 may determine whether or not to precache the additional content that is selected at block 230 based on the predicted intent of the user that is determined at block 220. The system precaches the additional content prior to displaying an overlay that includes the additional content.)
Badr does not teach detecting, at a sensor associated with a display providing content, an indication corresponding to intent of a user; ceasing the preemptive caching based on a change in the predicted intent of the user, wherein the change is determined based on sensor input received after the preemptive caching has begun, wherein the sensor input comprises one or more of gaze detection data, pressure detection data, movement detection data, or hover detection data.
Jung however in the same field of computer networking teaches detecting, at a sensor associated with a display providing content, an indication corresponding to intent of a user; (Jung, [0056], after a start operation implemented in the environment that includes a person viewing content displayed by an electronic device using a user direct-input device, the operational flow 400 includes an observation operation 410. The observation operation detects a reaction by the person to a displayed first content. The observation operation may be implemented using the reaction detector circuit 210, and/or the response sensing apparatus 206. An analytical operation 450 determines a content attribute of the displayed first content. [0057], the observation operation 410 may be implemented using the reaction detector circuit 210 of FIG. 3. For example, optically based observation data of the person 205 may be acquired by the sensor 206A, and/or sensor 206B.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Badr to specify detecting, at a sensor associated with a display providing content, an indication corresponding to intent of a user as taught by Jung. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to facilitating a search for a second content based on the detected reaction and on the determined content attribute (Jung, [0001]).
Badr does not teach ceasing the preemptive caching based on a change in the predicted intent of the user, wherein the change is determined based on sensor input received after the preemptive caching has begun, wherein the sensor input comprises one or more of gaze detection data, pressure detection data, movement detection data, or hover detection data.
Leekin however in the same field of computer networking teaches ceasing the preemptive caching based on a change in the predicted intent of the user, wherein the change is determined based on sensor input received after the preemptive caching has begun, wherein the sensor input comprises one or more of gaze detection data, pressure detection data, movement detection data, or hover detection data. (Leekin, [0030], the adjusting module 134 may be configured to pause or resume downloading content, an image, a video or the like, based on the determined gaze and/or attentiveness of the user toward that content, image, video or the like. Still further, the adjusting module 134 may be configured to enable or disable downloading content, an image, a video or the like, based on the determined gaze and/or attentiveness of the user toward that content, image, video or the like. The adjusting module 134 may be configured to adjust the rate of download down to zero in order to prevent or stop the download of content completely. For example, the adjusting module 134 may be configured to stop or prevent all download of content that is not being looked at by the user. The stopping or prevention may be permanent or temporary. The adjusting module 134 may be programmed to provide any type of download adjustment based on the particular interest detected and determined by the determining module 133.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Badr to specify ceasing the preemptive caching based on a change in the predicted intent of the user, wherein the change is determined based on sensor input received after the preemptive caching has begun, wherein the sensor input comprises one or more of gaze detection data, pressure detection data, movement detection data, or hover detection data as taught by Leekin. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to improve and optimizes computer systems and computer networks by requiring less data to be transmitted over a data network while still achieving equal satisfaction by a data consumer (Leekin, [0015]).
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 1, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2, the media of claim 1,
Badr-Jung Leekin teach wherein the historical information corresponds to prior actions taken by the user. (Badr, [0010], the device activity history of the user includes webpage navigation history of the user, searches of the user, applications accessed by the user, application states of the applications accessed by the user, or messages sent or received by the user.)
Regarding claim(s) 3, the media of claim 1,
Badr-Jung Leekin teach wherein the historical information corresponds to previously accessed content associated with the webpage. (Badr, [0010], the device activity history of the user includes webpage navigation history of the user, searches of the user, applications accessed by the user, application states of the applications accessed by the user, or messages sent or received by the user.)
Regarding claim(s) 6, the media of claim 1,
Badr does not teach further comprising determining the indication based on gaze detection corresponding to the user.
Jung however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising determining the indication based on gaze detection corresponding to the user. (Jung, [0052], the reaction detector circuit 210 may include at least one additional circuit. The at least one additional circuit may include at least one of a reaction circuit 212, reaction evaluation circuit 214, a gaze reaction circuit 216, a response sensor circuit 218, a physical reaction circuit 222, an emotional reaction circuit 224, a direct sensor circuit 226, a reaction state circuit 228, a content characteristic circuit 232, and/or a device type detector circuit 236.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 9, the media of claim 1,
Badr does not teach further comprising determining the indication based on movement detection corresponding to a user device.
Jung however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising determining the indication based on movement detection corresponding to a user device. (Jung, [0057], response may include at least one of a change in breathing rate, a change in heart rate, eye movements, facial movements, gaze direction and/or time, or a brain wave pattern.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 10, the media of claim 9,
Badr does not teach wherein the user device is a mouse or touch-sensitive device.
Jung however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the user device is a mouse or touch-sensitive device. (Jung, [0048], the user direct-input device 208 includes at least one device that may be used by the person to directly interact with the electronic device, such as the mouse 161, keyboard 162, microphone 163, and/or speakers 197 described in conjunction with FIG. 2, or a touch screen, such as the display 32 combined with the screen input detector 33 described in conjunction with FIG. 1.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 22, the system of claim 18,
Badr do not teach wherein the processor is further configured to resume the preemptive caching if the predicted intent of the user increases above a threshold.
Leekin however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the processor is further configured to resume the preemptive caching if the predicted intent of the user increases above a threshold. (Leekin, (Leekin, [0030], the adjusting module 134 may be configured to pause or resume downloading content, an image, a video or the like, based on the determined gaze and/or attentiveness of the user toward that content, image, video or the like. Still further, the adjusting module 134 may be configured to enable or disable downloading content, an image, a video or the like, based on the determined gaze and/or attentiveness of the user toward that content, image, video or the like. The adjusting module 134 may be configured to adjust the rate of download down to zero in order to prevent or stop the download of content completely. For example, the adjusting module 134 may be configured to stop or prevent all download of content that is not being looked at by the user. The stopping or prevention may be permanent or temporary. The adjusting module 134 may be programmed to provide any type of download adjustment based on the particular interest detected and determined by the determining module 133.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially similar to claim 2, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 6, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 9, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
2. Claim(s) 4, 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badr in view of Jung in view of Leekin further in view of Matejka (US 20160360262 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4, the media of claim 1,
Badr-Jung-Leekin do not teach further comprising loading the additional content in the background without changing the display providing content.
Matejka however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising loading the additional content in the background without changing the display providing content. (MATEJKA, [0028] Thus, while one video stream is playing on media player 212, media player 214 and the third media player may be assigned to the background of the display region and one or more of the media players 212 may load a different video stream while in the background of the display region)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Badr to specify further comprising loading the additional content in the background without changing the display providing content as taught by Matejka. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to detect an event associated with the playback of the first video stream, and, in response, initiating playback of the second video stream within the foreground of the display region (Matejka, [0007]).
Regarding claim(s) 5, the media of claim 4,
Badr-Jung-Leekin-Matejka do not teach further comprising, upon receiving an interaction from the user, changing the display to cease providing the additional content. (Leekin, [0030], the adjusting module 134 may be configured to pause or resume downloading content, an image, a video or the like, based on the determined gaze and/or attentiveness of the user toward that content, image, video or the like. Still further, the adjusting module 134 may be configured to enable or disable downloading content, an image, a video or the like, based on the determined gaze and/or attentiveness of the user toward that content, image, video or the like. The adjusting module 134 may be configured to adjust the rate of download down to zero in order to prevent or stop the download of content completely. For example, the adjusting module 134 may be configured to stop or prevent all download of content that is not being looked at by the user. The stopping or prevention may be permanent or temporary. The adjusting module 134 may be programmed to provide any type of download adjustment based on the particular interest detected and determined by the determining module 133.)
Claim(s) 21 is/are substantially similar to claim 4, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
3. Claim(s) 7-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badr in view of Jung in view of Leekin further in in view of PAZMINO (US 20230206572 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7, the media of claim 1,
Badr-Jung-Leekin do not teach further comprising determining the indication based on pressure detection corresponding to a user device.
PAZMINO however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising determining the indication based on pressure detection corresponding to a user device. (PAZMINO, [0105], the computer system is optionally able to determine the “effective” distance between physical objects in the physical world and virtual objects in the three-dimensional environment, for example, for the purpose of determining whether a physical object is directly interacting with a virtual object (e.g., whether a hand is touching, grabbing, holding, etc. a virtual object or within a threshold distance of a virtual object). For example, a hand directly interacting with a virtual object optionally includes one or more of a finger of a hand pressing a virtual button, a hand of a user grabbing a virtual vase, two fingers of a hand of the user coming together and pinching/holding a user interface of an application, and any of the other types of interactions described here.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Badr to specify further comprising determining the indication based on pressure detection corresponding to a user device as taught by PAZMINO. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for electronic devices with improved methods and interfaces for interacting with content in a three-dimensional environment (PAZMINO, [0007]).
Regarding claim(s) 8, the media of claim 7,
Badr-Jung-Leekin do not teach wherein the user device comprises one or more of a keyboard, a touchscreen, or a pressure-sensitive input surface.
PAZMINO however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the user device comprises one or more of a keyboard, a touchscreen, or a pressure-sensitive input surface. (PAZMINO, [0111], FIG. 7A illustrates a computer system (e.g., an electronic device) 101 displaying, via a display generation component (e.g., display generation component 120 of FIG. 1 ), a three-dimensional environment 702 from a viewpoint of the user 726 illustrated in the overhead view (e.g., facing the back wall of the physical environment in which computer system 101 is located). In some embodiments, computer system 101 includes a display generation component (e.g., a touch screen) and a plurality of image sensors (e.g., image sensors 314 of FIG. 3).)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 7 applies here.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 7, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
4. Claim(s) 11 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badr in view of Jung in view of Leekin further in view of Domm (US 20200304863 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 11, the media of claim 1,
Badr-Jung-Leekin do not teach wherein the hover detection data is based on hovering over a display region corresponding to a user device.
Domm however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the hover detection data is based on hovering over a display region corresponding to a user device. (DOMM, [0066] Contact/motion module 130 optionally detects contact with touch screen 112 (in conjunction with display controller 156) and other touch-sensitive devices (e.g., a touchpad or physical click wheel). Contact/motion module 130 includes various software components for performing various operations related to detection of contact, such as determining if contact has occurred (e.g., detecting a finger-down event), determining an intensity of the contact (e.g., the force or pressure of the contact or a substitute for the force or pressure of the contact) determining if there is movement of the contact and tracking the movement across the touch-sensitive surface (e.g., detecting one or more finger-dragging events), and determining if the contact has ceased (e.g., detecting a finger-up event or a break in contact). Contact/motion module 130 receives contact data from the touch-sensitive surface.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Badr to specify wherein the hover detection data is based on hovering over a display region corresponding to a user device as taught by Domm. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to reduces power usage and improves battery life of the electronic device by enabling the user to use the electronic device more quickly and efficiency, while reducing errors in usage (Domm, [0423]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 11, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449