DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 8/18/2023.
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapinos et al. (US 2024/0036794), hereinafter Kapinos, in view of Bender et al. (US 2019/0384481), hereinafter Bender
As per claim 1, Kapinos teaches the following:
a method, in a data processing system, for performing cross-screen movement operations in a multiple display device computer configuration, (see abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, from a user interface device, an input specifying a movement of a displayed element on a first display screen of the multiple display device computer configuration. As Kapinos teaches in paragraph [0063], and corresponding Fig. 5, a cursor 510 is a mouse cursor, where the mouse is a user interface devices. Kapinos teaches in paragraph [0064], and corresponding first display 506 of Fig. 5, “if the user were to move the cursor 510”;
calculating a path of motion of the displayed element based on the input. As Kapinos teaches in paragraph [0064], the device controlling the displays 502-508 may identify and project a motion vector 512 into space along the estimated line of mouse motion;
comparing the path of motion to a junction margin of the first display screen to determine if the path of motion intersects the junction margin, . As Kapinos further teaches in paragraph [0064], the motion vector of the cursor movement is compared to positions of secondary displays to determine whether the vector overlaps/intersects the disparate displays that are beyond the edge of the display;
in response to the path of motion intersecting the junction margin, placing the displayed element at a first point of the junction margin. As Kapinos teaches in paragraph [0065], the cursor may reach a bottom right edge of the display (placed at first point); and
in response to receiving a subsequent input having a subsequent path of motion that intersects the junction margin, performing a cross-screen movement operation to move the displayed element to an end point of the subsequent path of motion in the second display screen. As Kapinos teaches in paragraph [0065], the cursor may remain at the first point for a threshold amount of time before being presented on display 508 and continue in the direction of 514 or based on a change in direction of mouse motion, change directions. The Examiner interprets this teaching of Kapinos as encompassing Applicant’s limitations where a cursor on a first display is moved to a first edge position, remains at the position for a threshold amount of time, and then continues movement on a second display, where the movement after the threshold amount of time is a “subsequent input”.
While Kapinos teaches of the cursor moving to an edge of the display, Kapinos does not explicitly teach of a “margin” of the first display which virtually adjoins with a margin of the second display. In a similar field of endeavor, Bender teaches of a method of operating multiple displays via a single cursor (see abstract). Bender further teaches in paragraph [0031] that a display border edge of a first monitor is portioned, which is physically adjacent to a second display border edge of a second monitor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the display edges of Kapinos with the display partitions of Bender. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the display partitions of Bender benefit users in providing visual indication of which monitor a cursor will be moved, should a display change occur. Further see paragraph [0024] of Bender.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kapinos teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kapinos further teaches the following:
the user interface device is one of a computer mouse coupled to the data processing system. See paragraph [0063], “a mouse cursor/pointer”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kapinos teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Kapinos further teaches the following:
initiating a timer in response to the determining that the path of motion intersects the junction margin, wherein the timer counts down a period of time from a predetermined timer value; and monitoring for the subsequent input within the period of time measure by the timer. As Kapinos teaches in paragraph [0065], the cursor may remain at the first point for a threshold amount of time before being presented on display 508 and continue in the direction of 514 or based on a change in direction of mouse motion, change directions. Therefore, Kapinos suggests some form of timer for determining whether the cursor remains in position for the threshold amount of time.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kapinos teaches the method of claim 1. However, Kapinos does not explicitly teach of an inner boundary of the margin. Bender further teaches the following:
the first point of the junction margin is a point on an inner boundary of the junction margin. As Bender teaches in paragraph [0034], a cursor is monitored to be within a first threshold distance from the partitioned display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the display edges of Kapinos with the proximity detection of Bender. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Bender teaches in paragraph [0035], such proximity detection benefits users in allowing display of a border to show a possible intended action.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kapinos teaches the method of claim 1. While Kapinos shows of adjacent displays in Fig. 5, Kapinos does not explicitly teach of a verital or horizontal margin. Bender further teaches the following:
the first display screen is displayed by a first display device and the second display screen is displayed by a second display device, and wherein the junction margin is one of a vertical margin virtually adjoining the margin of the second display screen which is also a vertical margin, or a horizontal margin virtually adjoining the margin of the second display screen which is also a horizontal margin. See Figs. 4A-4C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the display edges of Kapinos with the adjacent display partitions of Bender. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Kapinos directly suggests the use of adjacent displays in a vertical/horizontal fashion in Fig. 4.
As per claim 11, Kapinos teaches the following:
a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having a computer readable program stored therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a computing device. See paragraph [0011].
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 12-14, modified Kapinos teaches the medium of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 12-14 are substantially similar to those of claims 3-5 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 20, Kapinos teaches the following:
an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one. See abstract.
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishikura et al. (US 5,585,821), see Fig. 6.
Naylor et al. (US 2019/0377472), adjusting a virtual buffer for display positions based on user corrections in cursor movement.
*Greenebaum et al. (US 2021/0096730), see Fig. 9.
Lemmens et al. (US 2022/0391158), see Fig. 5C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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 Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights