DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 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.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “wherein the zoom operation on the at least portion of the contents of the first virtual display layer is is performed without performing the zoom operation on the plurality of markings in the second virtual display layer” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (USPN 9,477,649) in view of Hotelling et al. (USPN 2006/0026535).
With respect to claim 1, Davidson teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with at least one non-transitory memory, a touch screen, and one or more processors, cause the electronic device to (Figs. 1A-5F and Col. 16, line-Col. 17, line 58 teach an electronic touch screen device including memory and processors):
display, via the touch screen, a first virtual display layer including contents including at least a textual character (Figs. 1A-5F. At least Fig. 2B, items 204 and 214 and Col. 6, lines 4-38 teach a first virtual layer 214 with text item 204);
detect, via the touch screen, at least a portion of touch (Figs. 1A-5F. At least Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 64 teach touch detection);
in response to an aspect of the touch being detected to surpass a threshold, display, via the touch screen, a plurality of markings in a second virtual display layer that appears to have a lesser depth than the first virtual display layer, where at least a portion of the second virtual display layer is at least partially translucent so that at least a portion of the contents of the first virtual display layer is visible through the at least portion of the second virtual display layer (Figs. 1A-5F. At least Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 64 teach touch and the display of stacked annotations. Examiner notes a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “virtual display layer” includes different layers of stacks as taught by Davidson. Therefore, an arbitrary amount of annotations that are stacked above another annotation are being interpreted as being on a different “layer”. This interpretation is based on paragraph [00493] of the specification as filed disclosing “in the context of the present description, a virtual display layer refers to a collection of display elements which have all been assigned the same apparent depth within the 3D layered user interface”. Examiner notes annotations stacked above other annotations are therefore on a different virtual display layer);
detect, via the touch screen, another touch on at least one of the plurality of markings (Figs. 1A-5F. At least Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 64 teach detection of different inputs using a manipulation mode);
in response to detection of the another touch on the at least one of the plurality of marking in the second virtual display layer that appears to have the lesser depth than the first virtual display layer, display, via the touch screen, a movement of one or more of the plurality of markings in the second virtual display layer (Figs. 1A-5F. At least 3I and 3J and Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 64 teach magnification and moving portions of the annotation); and
perform a zoom operation on the at least portion of the contents of the first virtual display layer (Figs. 1A-5F. At least Figs. 3I and 3J and Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 64 teach zooming the map contents of the first virtual display layer).
However, Davidson fails to expressly teach an electronic device including a camera.
Hotelling teaches a known technique using an electronic device including touch, zooming functionality and a camera (Figs. 1-15C and at least paragraphs [0070] and [0109]).
Davidson teaches a base process/product of an electronic device including touch and zooming functionality which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that the electronic device includes a camera. Hotelling teaches a known technique of using an electronic device including touch, zooming functionality and a camera that is comparable to the base process/product.
Hotelling’s known technique of using an electronic device including touch, zooming functionality and a camera would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Davidson and the results would have been predictable and resulted in an electronic device including a camera which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest single prior art of reference teaches virtual display layers, markings and zooming (see at least Davidson et al. USPN 9,477,649).
However, Davidson fails to expressly teach “the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the zoom operation on the at least portion of the contents of the first virtual display layer is is performed without performing the zoom operation on the plurality of markings in the second virtual display layer” (claim 4 – emphasis added).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Hudson (USPN 2006/0242607) teaches a text display layer on the bottom/first layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830am-5pm 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, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Antonio Xavier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights