DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims received on 2/9/2026 have been entered, and that no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues on page 7 in the filing on 2/9/2026 the cited prior art does not teach “determining a permissible subset of actions, from the plurality of available actions, based on the context information, and automatically selecting the at least one action from the permissible subset of actions based on the alphanumeric action label.” in claim 1.
Response to Argument 1: Respectfully, the combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev teach the above. Hudson 0063-0065 and Fig. 5 teaches an action of a google search with the hand drawn letter ‘g’ lassoing the word “pizza.” Hudson 0063-0064 teaches a subset of actions such as websites of nearby pizza restaurants, phone numbers of pizza restaurants, pizza Wikipedia entries, and pizza definitions. At least websites of nearby pizza restaurants and phone numbers of nearby pizza restaurants use the user’s GPS location as context. The subset of actions of displaying a webpage of nearby pizza restaurants or displaying phone numbers of pizza restaurants are automatically selected to be performed and displayed on the screen. Although they are presented in the form of user options, these sub-actions have still been determined, and automatically selected to be performed—in order to be presented as options.
This meets the claim limitations as currently claimed, and Applicant's Argument 1 filed on 2/9/2026 is not persuasive. Applicant’s remaining statements regarding the remaining independent and dependent claims are moot or not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, Patent Application Publication number US 20120044179 A1, (hereinafter “Hudson”), in view of Boyadjiev et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20170048270 A1 (hereinafter “Boyadjiev”).
Claim 1: Hudson teaches “A method of initiating an action in a utility system, industrial system, or communication network (i.e. a user may view and manipulate content available via a network connection, e.g., the Internet, by selecting links and/or typing a uniform resource identifier (URI) address via interaction with a display of the touch-sensitive device [Hudson 0005]), comprising:
processing, by at least one integrated circuit, information on a freehand user input captured using an input device (i.e. enable detection of user interaction, touch-sensitive devices typically include an array of sensor elements arranged at or near the detection surface. The detection elements provide one or more signals in response to changes in physical characteristics caused by user interaction with a display. These signals may be received by one or more circuits of the device, such as a processor, and control device functionality in response to touch-based user input. Examples technologies that may be used to detect physical characteristics caused by a finger or stylus in contact with a detection surface [Hudson 0004]) to identify at least one action to be performed (i.e. a gesture detected by a touch-sensitive device (e.g., device 101 in the example of FIG. 1). The continuous gesture 110 indicates both a function to be executed and content that execution of the function is based on. The continuous gesture 110 includes a first portion 112 that indicates the function to be executed [Hudson 0029, Fig. 1]), wherein processing the information on the freehand user input comprises
identifying at least one node as being marked by the freehand user input (i.e. continuous gesture 110 indicates both a function to be executed and content that execution of the function is based on… The continuous gesture 110 also includes a second portion 114 that indicates content in connection with the function indicated by first portion 112 of gesture 110 [Hudson 0029, Fig. 1, 6] note: Fig. 1 shows 1 node; fig. 6 shows 3 nodes) by
identifying a closed graphical shape in the freehand user input (i.e. a user has used finger 116 to draw a second portion 114 of continuous gesture 110 that substantially encircles, or lassos, content 120 [Hudson 0031, Fig. 1]), and
identifying the at least one node as having an alphanumeric representation or graphical representation that overlaps with the closed graphical shape or that is located within the closed graphical shape (i.e. content 120 may be any image presented via display 102. For example, content 120 may be an image of text presented via display 102. In other examples, content 120 may be a photo, video, icon, link, or other image presented via display 102 [Hudson 0032, Fig. 1]), and
determining the at least one action (i.e. Device 101 is configured to detect the first 112 and second 114 portions of continuous gesture 110, and correspondingly initiate functionality associated with the first portion 112 based on the content indicated by the second portion 114 [Hudson 0034]), from a plurality of available actions (i.e. where a "g" character represents a Google search, network action engine 356 may cause execution of a search via the search engine available at www.google.com. In other examples, other characters drawn as a first portion 112 of continuous gesture 110 may cause execution of different search engines at different URLs. For example, a "b" character may cause execution of a search by Microsoft's Bing. A "w" gesture portion may cause execution of a search via www.wikipedia.org. An "r" gesture portion may cause execution of a search for available restaurants via one or more known search engines catered to restaurant location. An "m" gesture portion may cause execution of a map search (e.g., www.google.com/maps). An "a" gesture portion may cause execution of a search via www.ask.com. Similarly, a "y" gesture portion may cause execution of a search via www.yahoo.com [Hudson 0049]), by
performing text recognition on the freehand user input to identify an alphanumeric action label included in the freehand user input (i.e. where a "g" character represents a Google search… a "b" character… A "w" gesture portion… An "r" gesture portion… An "m" gesture… An "a" gesture… a "y" gesture portion… [Hudson 0049, Fig. 1, 4-8] note: text recognition is performed on the user’s handwriting to identify which letter the user wrote),
retrieving context information for the utility system, industrial system, or communication network (i.e. device 101 includes global positioning system (GPS) functionality, a user's current position may indicate where the user is located [Hudson 0063]),…
determining a permissible subset of actions, from the plurality of available actions, based on the context information (i.e. Device 101 may, based on user selection of content, automatically determine options that a user may likely want to search based on the indicated content. For example, if a user selects the text "pizza," or a photo of a pizza, device 101 may determine restaurants near the user (where device 101 includes global positioning system (GPS) functionality, a user's current position may indicate where the user is located), and present web pages or phone numbers associated with those restaurants [Hudson 0063]… addition provide a user with an option to open a Wikipedia article describing the history of the term "pizza," or a dictionary entry describing the meaning of the term "pizza." [Hudson 0064] note: possible sub-actions such as determining restaurants website or phone numbers based on the context of being near to the user), and
automatically selecting the at least one action from the permissible subset of actions based on the alphanumeric action label (i.e. Device 101 may, based on user selection of content, automatically determine options that a user may likely want to search based on the indicated content. For example, if a user selects the text "pizza," or a photo of a pizza, device 101 may determine restaurants near the user (where device 101 includes global positioning system (GPS) functionality, a user's current position may indicate where the user is located), and present web pages or phone numbers associated with those restaurants [Hudson 0063-0064] note: user’s ‘g’ lasso selects ‘pizza.’ Sub-actions of presenting websites or phone numbers or wiki search or dictionary definition are determined, and then presenting website or phone numbers are automatically selected and performed); and
causing, by the at least one integrated circuit, a management or control system of the utility system, industrial system, or communication network to execute the at least one action (i.e. Device 101 may, based on user selection of content, automatically determine options that a user may likely want to search based on the indicated content. For example, if a user selects the text "pizza," or a photo of a pizza, device 101 may determine restaurants near the user (where device 101 includes global positioning system (GPS) functionality, a user's current position may indicate where the user is located), and present web pages or phone numbers associated with those restaurants [Hudson 0063-0064] note: user’s ‘g’ lasso selects ‘pizza.’ Sub-actions of presenting websites or phone numbers are determined, and then automatically selected and performed).”
Hudson is silent regarding “wherein the context information comprises data from a configuration or process description of the utility system, industrial system, or communication network,”
Boyadjiev teaches “retrieving context information for the utility system, industrial system, or communication network, wherein the context information comprises data from a configuration or process description of the utility system, industrial system, or communication network (i.e. shown as 704, a user may encircle nodes that are desired to be included in a group, and the group is created with those nosed [nodes]. Information of which nodes belong to each group is stored by the network security system 101, so the network devices can be analyzed within the context of their group… how close they are to each other... to determine whether a dimension or variable should be used as a factor for determining network security threats [Boyadjiev 0043, Fig. 7]),”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson to include the feature of having the ability to use network context information as disclosed by Boyadjiev.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of being able to pull contextual information from more/different sources, which allows for the features to be used in more applications, offering more use cases, greater customization, and increasing flexibility.
Claim 6: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Hudson teaches “wherein identifying the at least one node as being marked by the freehand user input comprises performing an ambiguity resolution (i.e. as shown by gesture 810A in FIG. 8A, a user has drawn a second portion 814A only surrounding a portion of content 820A. As such, detection of gesture 810A may be somewhat ambiguous, because device 101 may be unable to determine whether the user desired to initiate a search (as may be indicated by first portion 812A) based on only a portion of a word, phrase, photo, or video presented by content 820A, or whether the user intended to initiate a search based on the entire word, phrase, photo, or video of content 820A…. In one example, as depicted in FIG. 8A, in response to detection of ambiguous gesture 810A, device 101 may present to a user various options (e.g., an option list 818A as shown in FIG. 8A) to resolve the ambiguity [Hudson 0068-0069, Fig. 8A]).”
Claim 9: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Hudson teaches “wherein processing the information on the freehand user input comprises:
determining that the freehand user input comprises a joining element that connects at least two nodes,
wherein the at least one action is identified further based on the joining element (i.e. in FIG. 6, a user has… drawn a second gesture portion 614 that includes a first content lasso 614A. The first content lasso indicates a first content 620A to be searched via the search engine… in FIG. 6, the user has drawn second and third content lassos 614B and 614C surrounding second content 620B and 620C, respectively. Accordingly, gesture processing module 336 may detect the multiple content lassos 614A-614C over the same content (to clarify the content to be searched) or over multiple pieces of content, and initiate a search based on a combination of one or more of contents 620A-602C [Hudson 0059-0060, Fig. 6]).”
Claim 13: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Hudson teaches “wherein the input device is a mobile device (i.e. touch-sensitive devices as described herein include smart phones and tablet computers [Hudson 0021]), having a wireless interface or having a wired interface (i.e. communications module may be a wireless card, Ethernet port [Hudson 0042]).”
Claim 14: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach a system for initiating an action in a utility system, industrial system, or communication network (i.e. a user may view and manipulate content available via a network connection, e.g., the Internet, by selecting links and/or typing a uniform resource identifier (URI) address via interaction with a display of the touch-sensitive device [Hudson 0005]), comprising: an interface operative to receive information on a freehand user input; and at least one integrated circuit (i.e. enable detection of user interaction, touch-sensitive devices typically include an array of sensor elements arranged at or near the detection surface. The detection elements provide one or more signals in response to changes in physical characteristics caused by user interaction with a display. These signals may be received by one or more circuits of the device, such as a processor, and control device functionality in response to touch-based user input. Examples technologies that may be used to detect physical characteristics caused by a finger or stylus in contact with a detection surface [Hudson 0004]) operative to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 14, above. Hudson teaches “further comprising: the management or control system operative to be communicatively coupled with the at least one integrated circuit (i.e. enable detection of user interaction, touch-sensitive devices typically include an array of sensor elements arranged at or near the detection surface. The detection elements provide one or more signals in response to changes in physical characteristics caused by user interaction with a display. These signals may be received by one or more circuits of the device, such as a processor, and control device functionality in response to touch-based user input. Examples technologies that may be used to detect physical characteristics caused by a finger or stylus in contact with a detection surface [Hudson 0004]);
wherein the at least one integrated circuit is integrated into a handheld device (i.e. touch-sensitive devices as described herein include smart phones and tablet computers [Hudson 0021]) and operative to trigger the management or control system to execute the at least one action (i.e. where a user has selected the term pizza, a user may be provided one or more selectable buttons to initiate a search for the terms [Hudson 0064, Fig. 9] note: user selection an option in 0064. Note2: automatic execution of the action after the gesture is completed, in Fig. 9 step 904) or
wherein the system further comprises a handheld device to receive the freehand user input, the handheld device being communicatively coupled with the interface to provide information on the freehand user input to the at least one integrated circuit.”
Claim 20: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 13, above. Hudson teaches “the mobile device is a handheld device (i.e. touch-sensitive devices as described herein include smart phones and tablet computers [Hudson 0021]).”
Claims 2-3, 7, 11-12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, in view of Boyadjiev, in view of Strijkers et al., “Interactive Control over a Programmable Computer Network Using a Multi-touch Surface,” [published 2009], [online], [retrieved on 5/2/2025]. Retrieved from the internet <URL: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-01973-9_80 > (hereinafter “Strijkers”).
Claim 2: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Hudson and Boyadjiev are silent regarding “further comprising outputting a graphical representation of at least part of the utility system, industrial system, or communication network via a display surface of the input device, wherein the freehand user input is overlaid onto the graphical representation.”
Strijkers teaches “further comprising outputting a graphical representation of at least part of the utility system, industrial system, or communication network via a display surface of the input device, wherein the freehand user input is overlaid onto the graphical representation (Strijkers Fig. 5-6 show freehand user input, upon nodes. This freehand user input is information on the graphical markings, specifically routing/pathing information of the nodes).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev to include the feature of having the ability to output graphics of a communication as disclosed by Strijkers.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of being able interface with a network system, which allows for the features to be used in more applications, offering more use cases, greater customization, and increasing flexibility.
Claim 3: Hudson and Boyadjiev and Strijkers teach all the limitations of claim 2, above. Strijkers teaches “further comprising retrieving, by the input device, topology information for the utility system, industrial system, or communication network for generating the graphical representation, wherein the graphical representation is generated based on the topology information and comprises nodes and links between nodes (i.e. In routing mode users can define streams from producers to consumers. New streams are defined by dragging a line from node to node, starting with a producer and ending with a consumer (Figure 6(b)) [Strijkers pg 723 last para, through pg 724, Fig. 5-6] note: Fig. 5-6 show a network topology, presented to the user, so the user can program its routing. The topology comprises nodes [circles] and links between nodes [lines]).”
One would have been motivated to combine Hudson and Boyadjiev and Strijkers, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of being able interface with a network system, which allows for the features to be used in more applications, offering more use cases, greater customization, and increasing flexibility.
Claim 7: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Hudson teaches “wherein identifying at least one node as being marked by the freehand user input comprises:
identifying a first group of nodes comprising one or several first nodes as being marked by a first closed graphical shape in the freehand user input, and
identifying a second group of nodes comprising one or several second nodes as being marked by a second closed graphical shape in the freehand user input, the second group being different from the first group (i.e. in FIG. 6, a user has… drawn a second gesture portion 614 that includes a first content lasso 614A. The first content lasso indicates a first content 620A to be searched via the search engine… in FIG. 6, the user has drawn second and third content lassos 614B and 614C surrounding second content 620B and 620C, respectively. Accordingly, gesture processing module 336 may detect the multiple content lassos 614A-614C over the same content (to clarify the content to be searched) or over multiple pieces of content, and initiate a search based on a combination of one or more of contents 620A-602C [Hudson 0059-0060, Fig. 6]); and”
Hudson and Boyadjiev are silent regarding “wherein causing the management or control system to execute the at least one action comprises configuring a flow between the one or several first nodes and the one or several second nodes based on the at least one action.”
Strijkers teaches “wherein causing the management or control system to execute the at least one action comprises configuring a flow between the one or several first nodes and the one or several second nodes based on the at least one action (i.e. In routing mode users can define streams from producers to consumers. New streams are defined by dragging a line from node to node, starting with a producer and ending with a consumer (Figure 6(b))… creating paths [Strijkers pg 723 last para, through pg 724, Fig. 5-6] note: Fig. 5-6 shows a plurality of nodes marked by a dragged line. The system controls streams/path flow of network data between the plurality of nodes).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev to include the feature of having the ability to configure a sequence as disclosed by Strijkers.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of being able interface with a network system, which allows for the features to be used in more applications, offering more use cases, greater customization, and increasing flexibility.
Claim 11: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Hudson and Boyadjiev are silent regarding “wherein the at least one action is at least one flow management action.”
Strijkers teaches “wherein the at least one action is at least one flow management action (i.e. control system to manage programmable networks [Strijkers Abstract] note: data flow of a network).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev to include the feature of having the ability to manage flow as disclosed by Strijkers.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of being able interface with a network flow system, which allows for the features to be used in more applications, offering more use cases, greater customization, and increasing flexibility.
Claim 12: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Hudson and Boyadjiev are silent regarding “wherein the at least one action comprises at least one of the following: configuring a communication flow; reconfiguring a communication flow; configuring a power flow of a power transmission or distribution network; reconfiguring a power flow of a power transmission or distribution network; configuring a fluid flow of a fluid transmission or distribution network; or reconfiguring a fluid flow of a fluid transmission or distribution network.”
Strijkers teaches “wherein the at least one action comprises at least one of the following:
configuring a communication flow (i.e. control system to manage programmable networks [Strijkers Abstract] note: data flow of a communication network. Note2: programmable network indicate configurable);
reconfiguring a communication flow (i.e. control system to manage programmable networks [Strijkers Abstract] note: data flow of a communication network. Note2: programmable network indicate re-configurable);
configuring a power flow of a power transmission or distribution network;
reconfiguring a power flow of a power transmission or distribution network;
configuring a fluid flow of a fluid transmission or distribution network; or
reconfiguring a fluid flow of a fluid transmission or distribution network.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev to include the feature of having the ability to manage flow as disclosed by Strijkers.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of being able interface with a network flow system, which allows for the features to be used in more applications, offering more use cases, greater customization, and increasing flexibility.
Claim 19: Hudson and Boyadjiev and Strijkers teach all the limitations of claim 12, above. Strijkers teaches “wherein the at least one action comprises configuring or reconfiguring a communication switch, port, or firewall of a communication network (i.e. Fig. 5. Examples showing how to create a path or modify an existing path in the application. The black node is a producer, the grey node a router and the white node a consumer [Strijkers Fig. 5 subtext] note: router is a type of communication switch).”
One would have been motivated to combine Hudson and Boyadjiev and Strijkers, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit of being able interface with a network flow system, which allows for the features to be used in more applications, offering more use cases, greater customization, and increasing flexibility.
Claims 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, in view of Boyadjiev, in view of Srivastava, Patent Application Publication number US 20120189194 A1 (hereinafter “Srivastava”).
Claim 10: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 1, above. Hudson and Boyadjiev teach freehand user input.
Hudson and Boyadjiev are silent regarding “executing a classifier and the method further comprises a classifier training of the classifier in response to detecting a new user logon.”
Srivastava teaches “wherein processing the information on the… user input comprises executing a classifier and the method further comprises a classifier training of the classifier in response to detecting a new user logon (i.e. a HIP can be run through the trained classifier to determine a HIP classification for the HIP. For example, a HIP generation system used by a log-in protocol (e.g., for a webpage that registers new users) [Srivastava 0024]… in one embodiment, the classifier can be further trained (e.g., refined) using non-training set items, such as from subsequent classification of HIPs [Srivastava 0023]… a HIP that is classified as human solvable can be further analyzed by a human (e.g., or a human analog) to determine if it can actually be solved by a human [Srivastava 0033]) note: from instant specification, a “classifier may be operative to classify a drawn shape into one of several pre-defined shapes. The classifier may be operative to classify a freehand alphanumeric input in the freehand user input into words.” Srivastava discloses a classifier used in a “captcha” system which detects new users logging on, then the classifier is further trained by the user solving the captcha. A classifier classifies shapes into pre-defined shapes, or commands. The alphanumerical classifier of Srivastava also classifies shapes into pre-defined shape, as letters).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev to include the feature of having the ability to use a trainable classifier as disclosed by Srivastava.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to improve the behavior of the system over time, reducing user error.
Claim 18: Hudson and Boyadjiev and Srivastava teach all the limitations of claim 10, above. Srivastava teaches “wherein causing execution of the at least one action is selectively enabled in response to successful completion of the classifier training (i.e. a HIP can be run through the trained classifier to determine a HIP classification for the HIP. For example, a HIP generation system used by a log-in protocol (e.g., for a webpage that registers new users) [Srivastava 0024]… in one embodiment, the classifier can be further trained (e.g., refined) using non-training set items, such as from subsequent classification of HIPs [Srivastava 0023]… In one embodiment, a HIP that is classified as human solvable can be further analyzed by a human (e.g., or a human analog) to determine if it can actually be solved by a human [Srivastava 0033] note: “in response” is merely “after.” A trained classifier is a successfully completed trained classifier. Using the trained classifier, and refining the trained classifier are both come after, or “in response” to a completed classifier training. Note2: selectively enabled by using the optional embodiment to further train the classifier, and the optional embodiment to further solve a HIP by a user).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev to include the feature of having the ability to use a trainable classifier as disclosed by Srivastava.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to improve the behavior of the system over time, reducing user error.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, in view of Boyadjiev, in view of Lim et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20130212498 A1 (hereinafter “Lim”).
Claim 16: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 6, above. Hudson and Boyadjiev are silent regarding “wherein the ambiguity resolution comprises:
determining an overlap between an envelope of the alphanumeric representation or the graphical representation of the at least one node with the closed graphical shape; and
performing a threshold comparison of the overlap.”
Lim teaches “wherein the ambiguity resolution comprises:
determining an overlap between an envelope of the alphanumeric representation (Lim Fig. 6 shows a rectangle overlapping text. Examiner interprets envelope to be an edge) or the graphical representation of the at least one node with the closed graphical shape (Lim Fig. 6 shows rectangular closed graphical shape); and
performing a threshold comparison of the overlap (i.e. if the intersection between the approximate region (610, FIG. 6) selected by the user is higher than a predetermined threshold ratio of each individual node's bounding box area as defined by their individual spatial coordinates, the node is selected as a corresponding node, and is included in the corresponding region (710, FIG. 7) [Lim 0044, Fig 6-7]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev to include the feature of having the ability to perform ambiguity resolution as disclosed by Lim.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to have error correction, which reduces user error.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, in view of Boyadjiev, in view of Lim, in view of Buchanan et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20160334971 A1 (hereinafter “Buchanan”).
Claim 17: Hudson and Boyadjiev and Lim teach all the limitations of claim 16, above. Hudson and Boyadjiev and Lim teach a threshold comparison in claim 16.
Hudson and Boyadjiev and Lim are silent regarding the concept of adaptively modifying a threshold, based on zoom level: “wherein the threshold comparison is adaptively modified as a function of a zoom level setting of the input device.”
Buchanan teaches “wherein the threshold comparison is adaptively modified as a function of a zoom level setting of the input device (i.e. It should also be appreciated that the processor may be configured to dynamically change the predetermined distance and/or the predetermined speed threshold within which the first object is snapped to a candidate connection position depending on one or more different factors which may include: a zoom level) [Buchanan 0045] note: The ambiguity resolution of claim 16 determines how far away a threshold should be to perform a function. Likewise, Buchanan teaches the concept of determining how far away the threshold is to perform a function).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev and Lim to include the feature of having the ability to change the behavior based on zoom level as disclosed by Buchanan.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to be able to draw more accurate lines, which reduces user error.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, in view of Boyadjiev, in view of Saund et al., Patent Application Publication number US 20080232690 A1 (hereinafter “Saund”).
Claim 21: Hudson and Boyadjiev teach all the limitations of claim 9, above. Hudson and Boyadjiev are silent regarding “wherein processing the information on the freehand user input further comprises determining a directionality of the joining element based on one or more arrowheads in the freehand user input.”
Saund teaches “wherein processing the information on the freehand user input further comprises determining a directionality of the joining element based on one or more arrowheads in the freehand user input (i.e. Links are also used to represent data by depicting relations among concept nodes. Often, they have an additional characteristic in that they relate to data representations by identifying direction, for example, with a termination symbol such as an arrow symbol [Saund 0042, Fig. 1, 6]).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention/combination of Hudson and Boyadjiev to include the feature of having the ability to determine directionality as disclosed by Saund.
One would have been motivated to do so, before the effective filing date of the invention because it provides the benefit to collect more information regarding the user’s freehand input, in order to better determine the user’s intent, such as sequence, direction, and/or cause and effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ho (US 20140248948 A1) listed on 892 is related to freehand input, selecting nodes, and processing commands.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL SHEN whose telephone number is (469)295-9169 and email address is samuel.shen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights