DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 13 September 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 is an independent claim. The acronyms GUI needs to be defined the same way as it is done in the independent claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 18 are 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 claims 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.
Claim 6 recites “said visual element moves according to a function of a displacement metric of said user's input to said gesture handler” (emphasis added). The highlighted limitation is not disclosed in the specification.
Claim 18 recites “an actuation of said current piece of computer readable media out of view of said GUI, whereby said following piece of computer readable becomes perceivable” (emphasis added). The highlighted limitation is not disclosed in the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 11-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “said user” and “said numerical value” in element d; and “said user”, “said user's completion”, “the input”, “the collection of explicit feedback” and “said user's decision” in element e. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the subelements” towards the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the initiation” and “said user's input” towards the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said user's input” towards the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “said user” at the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said user” at the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said gesture interaction's magnitude” in element c of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said gesture interaction's magnitude” in the middle of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said user's time” towards the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “said user's time” towards the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as they are dependent on claims 1 and 11.
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 1-5, 7-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHELITSCH et al. (US20050076093A1) in view of TRIVERIO et al. (US20210349612A1).
As to claim 1, MICHELITSCH teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program which when executed by at least one processor provides a graphical user interface (GUI) for controlling an application (see figs. 1-12, par. 0047, wherein FIG. 3 shows an exemplary feedback input terminal according to the preferred embodiment of the present invention; as taught by MICHELITSCH),
said GUI comprising: a. a piece of computer readable media (see figs. 1-12, par. 0058, wherein content does refer to any information and entertainment item in one media format or the combination of multiple media formats. Media Formats may be audio, video, images, pictures and text. One piece of content, e.g. one song, one news article, one movie, etc., is generally referred to as an item; as taught by MICHELITSCH);
b. a gesture handler, capable of detecting gestures being able to originate from a plurality of locations on said GUI (see figs. 1-12, par. 0077, wherein FIG. 3 shows a schematic representation of a system dialogue. The user is presented with the ability to give feedback to one item recommended, e.g. an item number i which is currently reproduced. The shown feedback input terminal 13 displays the item i 14, a first input button 15 for a positive feedback 10, i.e. ‘like’, and a second input button 16 for a negative feedback 10, i.e. ‘dislike’. An enhanced dialogue may be a preferred embodiment to give users the ability to give feedback on a specific item attribute of the item in the recommendation as well as feedback to the item in general; as taught by MICHELITSCH);
d. a numerical explicit feedback score with a plurality of possible magnitudes (see figs. 1-12, par. 0042, wherein the user feedback within the recommendation procedure of this preferred embodiment is achieved by implicit and explicit feedback. Explicit feedback is gathered by collecting rating information on an item based on two values, e.g. 1 and −1. A feedback of value 1 expresses appreciation of the information and entertainment item by the user, i.e. ‘like’. A value of −1 does stand for rejection of the content item by the user, i.e. ‘dislike’; see also pars. 16-19, 0081-0084; and 0124; as taught by MICHELITSCH);
e. a transition to a following piece of computer readable media, after said user has interacted with said gesture handler (see figs. 1-12, par. 0066, wherein the selection engine 2 can access the items 4 to produce the selection 9, i.e. the selection list and/or the corresponding content items. Also the selection engine 2 can be arranged within the recommendation device according to the present invention or outside thereof, as long as it is secured that the selection 9 output by the selection engine 2 is accessible by the arrangement engine 9 of the content recommendation device according to the present invention. The selection engine 2 generates the selection 9 by selecting a predetermined number of the items 4 according to the item attributes 5, the user profile 11, the business rules 6, and the other rules 8; as taught by MICHELITSCH)
and provide said numerical explicit feedback score, upon said user's completion of the input to said gesture handler, whereby the collection of explicit feedback for said piece of computer readable media from a user is simultaneous with said user's decision to navigate to said following piece of computer readable media (see figs. 1-12, par. 0070, wherein the recommendations 12 are presented to the user. The user has the ability to interact with the system by giving feedback 10 to the system. The feedback 10 given does influence future item recommendations 12 and/or item selections 9; see also fig. 9, pars. 0113-0118; as taught by MICHELITSCH).
MICHELITSCH does not teach: c. a visual element that visibility transforms into a plurality of forms in conjunction with a user's gesture interaction with said gesture handler; which each correspond to a form of said visual element such that said user can approximately determine said numerical value from said visual element; and to transform said visual element.
In similar field of endeavor, TRIVERIO teaches c. a visual element that visibility transforms into a plurality of forms in conjunction with a user's gesture interaction with said gesture handler (see figs. 6J-6X, par. 0295, wherein the computer system detects a request (e.g., via a touch-sensitive surface) to edit a second avatar feature of the plurality of avatar features (e.g., 623, 639, 643, 647, 653, 659, 669) (e.g., a left/right swipe while in the editing mode for the respective avatar feature). In some embodiments, detecting the request to edit the second avatar feature includes detecting, via a touch-sensitive surface, a swipe gesture (e.g., 623, 639, 643, 647, 653, 659, 669) (e.g., feature categories are arranged horizontally, and a user can swipe to enter an editing mode for another feature category (e.g., swipe from hair style category to hair color category)). In some embodiments, in response to detecting the request to edit the second avatar feature and in accordance with a determination that the characteristic selection element is displayed as the plurality of indicators having a same value for a first visual characteristic (e.g., 622 a) (e.g., dots of uniform size and color) and that the second avatar feature is a first type of feature (e.g., a feature with characteristic options of different colors), the computer system displays, via the display generation component, an animation of the characteristic selection element transitioning from the plurality of indicators having the same value for the first visual characteristic (e.g., 622 a) to the plurality of color indicators having different values for the first visual characteristic (e.g., 622 b) (e.g., transitioning gradually from a first state of the plurality of indicators to a second state of the plurality of indicators). Displaying an animation of the characteristic selection element transitioning from the plurality of indicators having the same value for the first visual characteristic to the plurality of color indicators having different values for the first visual characteristic provides visual feedback to the user confirming that a different type of feature has been selected to be edited. Providing improved visual feedback to the user enhances the operability of the computer system and makes the user-device interface more efficient (e.g., by helping the user to provide proper inputs and reducing user mistakes when operating/interacting with the computer system) which, additionally, reduces power usage and improves battery life of the computer system by enabling the user to use the computer system more quickly and efficiently; as taught by TRIVERIO);
which each correspond to a form of said visual element such that said user can approximately determine said numerical value from said visual element; and to transform said visual element (see figs. 6J-6X, par. 0296, wherein in response to detecting the request to edit the second avatar feature and in accordance with a determination that the characteristic selection element is displayed as the plurality of color indicators having different respective colors (e.g., 622 b) and that the second avatar feature is a second type of feature (e.g., a feature with different styles of characteristic options (e.g., nose shape, hair style)), the computer system displays, via the display generation component, an animation of the characteristic selection element transitioning from the plurality of color indicators having different values for the first visual characteristic (e.g., 622 b) to the plurality of indicators having the same value for the first visual characteristic (e.g., 622 a) (e.g., transitioning gradually from a second state of the plurality of indicators to a first state of the plurality of indicators). Displaying an animation of the characteristic selection element transitioning from the plurality of color indicators having different values for the first visual characteristic to the plurality of indicators having the same value for the first visual characteristic provides visual feedback to the user confirming that a different type of feature has been selected to be edited; as taught by TRIVERIO).
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 the MICHELITSCH apparatus to include the teachings of TRIVERIO for c. a visual element that visibility transforms into a plurality of forms in conjunction with a user's gesture interaction with said gesture handler; which each correspond to a form of said visual element such that said user can approximately determine said numerical value from said visual element; and to transform said visual element. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as providing improved visual feedback to the user enhances the operability of the computer system and makes the user-device interface more efficient (e.g., by helping the user to provide proper inputs and reducing user mistakes when operating/interacting with the computer system) (see TRIVERIO, par. 0246).
As to claim 2, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. TRIVERIO further teaches wherein said gesture handler is positioned so that it shares area within said GUI with said computer readable media (see figs. 6J-6X, par. 0219, wherein as shown in FIG. 6K, avatar editing user interface 616 includes a first type of characteristic selection element 622 a. Characteristic selection element 622 a indicates a number of options that can be selected for the hairstyle characteristic (e.g., there are seven different hairstyles available as indicated by the seven indicators in the characteristic selection element 622 a). For characteristics of avatar 606 b having different selectable styles or shapes, indicators in the first type of characteristic selection element 622 a have a uniform size and color. The indicator in the characteristic selection element 622 a corresponding to the currently displayed characteristic (e.g., the third option) is highlighted (e.g., with a circle, a different color, or a larger indicator than unselected options) to indicate that the corresponding characteristic is currently selected and displayed on avatar 606 b; as taught by TRIVERIO).
As to claim 3, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. TRIVERIO further teaches wherein said visual element is a visual that moves across said GUI (see figs. 6J-6X, par. 0227, wherein in response to detecting input 631 on display 602 (e.g., a tap gesture or a long press gesture) at a location corresponding to the second type of characteristic selection element 622 b (as shown in FIG. 6N), a third type of characteristic selection element 622 c is displayed, as shown in FIG. 6O. The third type of characteristic selection element 622 c is a fine adjustment slider for making relatively minor changes to a selected color characteristic. The third type of characteristic selection element 622 c includes a continuous gradient of colors instead of discrete color options used for second type of characteristic selection element. In some embodiments, the range of colors in the continuous gradient of colors is based on a selected color option (e.g., different ranges of colors are displayed based on which color option is selected); as taught by TRIVERIO).
As to claim 4, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. TRIVERIO further teaches wherein said visual element is a sequence of visual icons with a plurality of possible transitions between the subelements of said sequence of visual icons (see figs. 6J-6X, par. 0219, wherein as shown in FIG. 6K, avatar editing user interface 616 includes a first type of characteristic selection element 622 a. Characteristic selection element 622 a indicates a number of options that can be selected for the hairstyle characteristic (e.g., there are seven different hairstyles available as indicated by the seven indicators in the characteristic selection element 622 a). For characteristics of avatar 606 b having different selectable styles or shapes, indicators in the first type of characteristic selection element 622 a have a uniform size and color. The indicator in the characteristic selection element 622 a corresponding to the currently displayed characteristic (e.g., the third option) is highlighted (e.g., with a circle, a different color, or a larger indicator than unselected options) to indicate that the corresponding characteristic is currently selected and displayed on avatar 606 b; as taught by TRIVERIO).
As to claim 5, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. TRIVERIO further teaches wherein said visual element is visible prior to the initiation of said user's input to said gesture handler (see figs. 6J-6X, par. 0219, wherein as shown in FIG. 6K, avatar editing user interface 616 includes a first type of characteristic selection element 622 a. Characteristic selection element 622 a indicates a number of options that can be selected for the hairstyle characteristic (e.g., there are seven different hairstyles available as indicated by the seven indicators in the characteristic selection element 622 a). For characteristics of avatar 606 b having different selectable styles or shapes, indicators in the first type of characteristic selection element 622 a have a uniform size and color; as taught by TRIVERIO).
As to claim 7, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. MICHELITSCH further teaches wherein said numerical explicit feedback score is computed as a function of said user's gesture interaction's magnitude (see par. 0043, wherein the reaction is a measure for the intensity the user is operating the input device or terminal. For example, the pressure put on an explicit feedback control or the reaction time of a user to operate the explicit feedback control; see also par. 0084; as taught by MICHELITSCH).
As to claim 8, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. MICHELITSCH further teaches wherein said numerical explicit feedback score can be transmitted to a remote internet server for use in improving a content recommendation profile for said user (see fig. 12, par. 0127, wherein the recommendation device 35 communicates via a network 36, which might be a cellular network, the internet or another suited network, with a server side 37, which might comprise networked server computers. Depending on the implementation, the server side 37 might serve as content item pool 4 or even deliver the selections 9; see also par. 0065; as taught by MICHELITSCH).
As to claim 9, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. MICHELITSCH further teaches wherein said numerical explicit feedback score is weighted by implicit feedback, determined by a function of time spent on said piece of computer readable media (see par. 0043, wherein the reaction is a measure for the intensity the user is operating the input device or terminal. For example, the pressure put on an explicit feedback control or the reaction time of a user to operate the explicit feedback control; see also par. 0084; as taught by MICHELITSCH).
As to claim 10, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. TRIVERIO further teaches wherein said transition and determination of said numerical explicit feedback score can be canceled by said user by ending input to said gesture handler in one of a plurality of locations on said GUI (see figs. 1A-1B, par. 0138, wherein Event comparator 184 compares the event information to predefined event or sub-event definitions and, based on the comparison, determines an event or sub-event, or determines or updates the state of an event or sub-event. In some embodiments, event comparator 184 includes event definitions 186. Event definitions 186 contain definitions of events (e.g., predefined sequences of sub-events), for example, event 1 (187-1), event 2 (187-2), and others. In some embodiments, sub-events in an event (187) include, for example, touch begin, touch end, touch movement, touch cancellation, and multiple touching; as taught by TRIVERIO).
Claim 11 amounts to the method performed by the execution of nontransitorily stored computer program code that is stored on the tangible, nontransitory, computer readable medium of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 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 12 amounts to the method performed by the execution of nontransitorily stored computer program code that is stored on the tangible, nontransitory, computer readable medium of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 12 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.
Claim 13 amounts to the method performed by the execution of nontransitorily stored computer program code that is stored on the tangible, nontransitory, computer readable medium of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 8 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 14 amounts to the method performed by the execution of nontransitorily stored computer program code that is stored on the tangible, nontransitory, computer readable medium of claim 9. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 9 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
As to claim 15, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 11. MICHELITSCH further teaches wherein said GUI is on a handheld mobile device (see fig. 12, par. 0127, wherein FIG. 12 shows a possible system architecture within which the recommendation device/system according to the preferred embodiment of the present invention is installed. The recommendation device 35 might be a mobile phone, a PDA, a PC or another suited device; as taught by MICHELITSCH).
Claim 16 amounts to the method performed by the execution of nontransitorily stored computer program code that is stored on the tangible, nontransitory, computer readable medium 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.
As to claim 19, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 11. MICHELITSCH further teaches wherein said method is repeatable by treating said following piece of computer readable media as a new current piece of computer readable media and by queueing a new following piece of computer readable media (See figs. 1-2, pars. 0060-0076, for example fig. 2, steps S1-S7, par. 0073, wherein This feedback 10 might be directed to all recommendation items of the recommendation 9 or to just a part thereof, e.g. only to a currently reproduced recommendation item. In a following third step S3 it is decided whether or not a new selection 9 should be generated based on the feedback 10. If a new selection 9 should be generated, the process continues with a fourth step S4 in which said task is performed. The selection 9 comprises items that may suit the users wants. In case it is decided in the third step S3 that the current selection should not be updated, this fourth step S4 gets skipped. To improve the list presented to the user, in a following fifth Step S5 (following after the fourth step S4 or, in case the fourth step S4 is skipped, directly after the third step S3) a new recommendation 12 is generated, i.e. a recommendation number n+1. The new recommendation 12 may be close to the existing recommendation, i.e. the recommendation number n. Based on the distance of recommendation n+1 to recommendation n, the system chooses whether or not to update the recommendation 12 in a following sixth step S6. In case the distance is below a certain threshold, the process returns to the first step S1, otherwise the process continues with a seventh step S7 in which recommendation n+1, which comprises the new list of information and entertainment items, gets presented to the user who can then continue the process with the second step S2, i.e. giving his feedback 10 to the recommendation number n+1 so that a recommendation number n+2 . . . can be generated; as taught by MICHELITSCH).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHELITSCH et al. (US20050076093A1) in view of TRIVERIO et al. (US20210349612A1) and further view of DOHERTY et al. (US20180197575A1).
As to claim 6, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 1. MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO do not teach wherein said visual element moves according to a function of a displacement metric of said user's input to said gesture handler.
In similar field of endeavor, DOHERTY teaches wherein said visual element moves according to a function of a displacement metric of said user's input to said gesture handler (see par. 0050, wherein In one implementation shown in FIGS. 3-5, the visual element and/or the ad platform can index through frames in the set of frames at a rate proportional to a scroll-rate of a scroll-event that moves the visual element vertically within a window of the computing device. In this implementation, the visual element can segment a height of the window (less a height of the visual element) into a number of discrete vertical position ranges equal to the number of frames in the set of frames selected and assign each discrete vertical position range to one frame in the set of frames. With the visual element thus loaded into a webpage or other document, the visual element then updates content shown within the visual element based on the position of the visual element within a window rendered on the computing device. In particular, as the webpage containing the visual element is moved up and down (or left and right) within the window, the visual element indexes through frames in the set of frames based on changes to the position of the visual element relative to the window, such as due to scroll-down and scroll-up inputs entered by the user into the computing device; as taught by DOHERTY).
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 the MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO method to include the teachings of DOHERTY wherein said visual element moves according to a function of a displacement metric of said user's input to said gesture handler. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is beneficial for the movement of the visual element to be proportional to the movement of the user input as the user could expect where the visual item will approximately land.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHELITSCH et al. (US20050076093A1) in view of TRIVERIO et al. (US20210349612A1) and further view of KARRI et al. (US20230306317A1).
As to claim 17, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 11. MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO do not teach wherein said numerical explicit feedback score is equal to any of a plurality of floating or fixed point numbers between zero and one.
In similar field of endeavor, KARRI teaches wherein said numerical explicit feedback score is equal to any of a plurality of floating or fixed point numbers between zero and one (see par. 0037, wherein processing proceeds to operation S265, where processing mod 304: (i) selects which user reviews to consider when setting the itinerary; and (ii) provides weight factors for each selected POI user review score in the POI data set. Under the terminology of this document, both of these steps are considered as “weighting” or providing “weight factors.” This is because, the user reviews that are not selected for consideration have a weight factor of zero. In some embodiments, each user review may be binarily assigned a weight factor of zero or one, with no weight factors that are in-between. In other embodiments, including the embodiment now under discussion, at least some of the user reviews may be assigned weight factors between zero and one; as taught by KARRI).
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 the MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO method to include the teachings of KARRI wherein said numerical explicit feedback score is equal to any of a plurality of floating or fixed point numbers between zero and one. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is beneficial to use a weighted score than a binary score so that the representation of the value is more related to the real world experience (see also KARRI pars. 0003-0004 and 0047-0048).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHELITSCH et al. (US20050076093A1) in view of TRIVERIO et al. (US20210349612A1) and further view of HARDEE et al. (US20220161145A1).
As to claim 18, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 11. MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO do not teach wherein said transition consists of an actuation of said current piece of computer readable media out of view of said GUI, whereby said following piece of computer readable becomes perceivable to said user.
In similar field of endeavor, HARDEE teaches wherein said transition consists of an actuation of said current piece of computer readable media out of view of said GUI, whereby said following piece of computer readable becomes perceivable to said user (see par. 0012, wherein upon detecting an initiation of recording the user interface of the application, the user interface of the application (e.g., gaming application) is modified to ensure that the information desired to be viewed (and heard) by the viewers is recorded, such as by displaying new content, adjusting a size of an element of the user interface, adjusting a location of an element of the user interface, adjusting a duration of time in displaying an element of the user interface, adjusting an audio element of the user interface, adding overlay information to the user interface, adding or removing an audio component, adding, removing or altering transitions (moving elements of the user interface), etc.; as taught by HARDEE).
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 the MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO method to include the teachings of HARDEE wherein said transition consists of an actuation of said current piece of computer readable media out of view of said GUI, whereby said following piece of computer readable becomes perceivable to said user. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is beneficial to be able to start transition of the visual items to a new item even when the item is not visible due to small screen size or other factors.
As to claim 20, MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO teach the limitations of claim 11. MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO do not teach wherein said gesture interaction can result in other functionality if said functionality does not conflict with said method for collecting feedback on said current piece of computer readable media in conjunction with transitioning to said following piece of computer readable media.
In similar field of endeavor, HARDEE teaches wherein said gesture interaction can result in other functionality if said functionality does not conflict with said method for collecting feedback on said current piece of computer readable media in conjunction with transitioning to said following piece of computer readable media (see par. 0045, wherein rule learning engine 108 is responsible for analyzing collected user judgments. Gathered data are intended to serve in a promoting/demoting ranking, which assigns a priority to the executed rule in order to promote or demote rules and try to resolve conflicting ones; as taught by HARDEE).
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 the MICHELITSCH and TRIVERIO method to include the teachings of HARDEE wherein said gesture interaction can result in other functionality if said functionality does not conflict with said method for collecting feedback on said current piece of computer readable media in conjunction with transitioning to said following piece of computer readable media. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is beneficial and more flexible to be able to run other functions on the GUI such as other controls as long as they are not contrary to the function of transitioning the visual item.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Publication Number
Filing Date
Title
US20140046922A1
2012-08-08
Search user interface using outward physical expressions
US20090100380A1
2007-10-12
Navigating through content
US20230379229A1
2022-05-17
Artificial intelligence based service quality response system
US20200286103A1
2020-03-04
Selecting digital media assets based on transitions across categories
US8191004B2
2008-08-06
User feedback correlated to specific user interface or application features
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, 9-5 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 on 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