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 .
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on 06/17/2026. Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith.
Contingent Limitations
Section MPEP 2111.04(II) sets forth, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” The following are contingent limitations which are not required to be found in the prior art under broadest reasonable interpretation. This does not necessarily include contingent limitations which are required to be found in the prior art.
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitations “based on the location measurement signal being received from the external device, obtain information regarding a location of the external device based on the location measurement signal”. The step of “the adjustment step being performed based on the obtained location information only when a control signal and measurement signal are received..” is interpreted as containing contingent limitations. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 1 only requires limitation a communication interface configured to communicate with an external device, display, memory and processor performing control signal handling location measurement request, highlight identification and UI element adjustment. The contingent limitations is for the compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 3 recites the following contingent limitations “..based on identifying that the distance between the external device and the electronic apparatus is a first distance, identify the size of the text included in the first UI element as a first size; and based on identifying that the distance between the external device and the electronic apparatus is a second distance that is greater than the first distance..” is contingent if a second distance that is greater than the first distance, identify the size of the text included in the first UI element as a second size that is greater than the first size. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3 does not require this contingent limitation. The contingent limitations is for the compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 6 recites the following contingent limitations “..based on identifying that the external device is located to a left of the electronic apparatus, control the display to rotate and display the first UI element to the left; and based on identifying that the external device is located to a right of the electronic apparatus, control the display to rotate and display the first UI element to the right”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6 does not require this contingent limitation. The contingent limitations is for the compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 7 recites the following contingent limitations “..based on the UI being displayed on an image regarding a content, control the display to display the image regarding the content on a first layer and display the UI on a second layer; and control the display to adjust at least one of the size or the shape of the first UI element that is displayed on the second layer, based on the information regarding a the location of the external device while the image regarding the content displayed on the first layer is maintained. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 does not require this contingent limitation. The contingent limitations is for the compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
Claim 9 recites the following contingent limitations “.. obtain the information regarding the location of the external device in real time based on the location measurement signal; and control the display to adjust at least one of the size or the shape of the first UI element that is displayed, based on the information regarding a the location of the external device..” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 does not require this contingent limitation. The contingent limitations is for the compact prosecution but is not required by the prior art to read on the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0052624) in view of Hall et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0069982).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, Robert discloses an electronic apparatus (see figures 1-2; para. 0030 "content processing subsystem 104"; see para. 0032: "content processing device 110") comprising:
a communication interface configured to communicate with an external device (see Figures 1-2; para. 0031: "one or more devices or components configured to communicate with the user device 106", "content processing device 110 is configured to communicate the user device 106°; (361: "communication interface 132 for communicating with the user device 106"); a display (Figures 1-3; see para. 0030: "output components of the content processing subsystem 104 that may include display 112", "The output devices may be integrated with the content processing device 110"); a memory configured to store at least one instruction (see Fig. 2) para. 0025: "instructions, e.g., from a memory"; see para. 0041: "applications may reside in memory 135"); and a processor connected to the communication interface, the display and the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction (Figure 2; (25]: "a processor executes those instructions"; see para. 0048]: "processor 138 configured to control the operations of the processing device 110") to: based on a control signal being received by the external device (see para. 0052]: "actuation of any button on the user device 106") while a user interface (UI) including a plurality of UI elements is displayed by the display (see Figs. 6 and 8; para. 0061]: "menus displayed by the display 112"), control the communication interface to transmit, to the external device, a request signal for requesting a location measurement signal (actuation of any button on the user device 106 may initiate an instance of content modification. Accordingly, the user 108 may utilize the user device 106 to initiate an updating of positional relationship data"; [see para. 0064]: "initiate a determination of a positional relationship by polling user device 106"); based on the location measurement signal being received from the external device, obtain information regarding a location of the external device based on the location measurement signal (168): "processing device 110 may be configured to determine the positional relationship based on information explicitly or implicitly included in communication signals"); identify a first UI element at which a highlight is located, from among the plurality of UI elements, based on the control signal; (see para. 0061) "A left button 149, right button 150, up button 151, and down button 152 may be included and configured to enable the user to navigate through menus displayed by the display 112"; see Figures 6 and 8; and based on the information regarding the location of the external device (see Figures 7 and 9; para. 0023): "modify content, or at least one element of the content based on the positional relationship. For example, content may be scaled in size based on a determined distance"; [see para. 0078]: "stretching", "skewing"); Robert fails to explicitly teach control the display to adjust at least one of size or shape of the first UI element while the plurality are displayed.
Hall discloses control the display to adjust at least one of size or shape of the first UI element while the plurality are displayed [see para. 0017, 0037, 0038; The adjusted user interface data is provided to the display device to adjust presentation of the user interface at the viewing surface in response to the changes in position of the one or more entities and UI adjustment module indicate how to UI presentation module how to adjust (e.g., scale, add content to, remove content from, pause, etc.) UI data. From the indication of how to adjust UI data, UI presentation module formulate adjusted UI data. Adjusted UI data appropriate for presentation at viewing surface based on entity being at relative location; which corresponds formulate adjusted UI data when entities change position relative to the display].
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chao before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, modifying content based on a position relationship of Roberts to include adjusting UI based on entity location , as taught by Hall, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would be a straightforward implementation choice to then adjust accordingly a size of the containing UI element and to improve usability and visibility depending on the user controller’s location in the environment.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18, Roberts discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: based on identifying that the distance between the external device and the electronic apparatus is a first distance, identify the size of the text included in the first UI element as a first size [see para. 0093; a positional relationship may include a distance component, and the extent of the content modification may be based on the value of the distance component. The extent to which the content is modified may be proportional to the value of the distance]; and based on identifying that the distance between the external device and the electronic apparatus is a second distance that is greater than the first distance, identify the size of the text included in the first UI element as a second size that is greater than the first size [see para. 0094; different ranges of distances may be predefined and assigned different modification factors (e.g., scaling factors such as a constant, a ratio, or a percentage). Accordingly, content may be modified by applying a modification factor to one more elements of the content, where the modification factor is selected based on the distance. In certain embodiments, relatively larger scaling factors may be applied for relatively greater distances, and relatively smaller scaling factors may be applied for relatively shorter distances].
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, Roberts discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: receive eyesight information of a user from the external device through the communication interface; and identify the size of the text included in the first UI element based on the eyesight information of the user and the distance between the external device and the electronic apparatus [see para. 0097; setup includes an automated eye exam feature that provides configuration output (e.g., configuration content such as an eye exam chart, audio content, or other visual content), prompts for, and accepts input from the user. Accordingly, the user may be at a preferred position relative to the content processing subsystem (e.g., sitting on a couch) and provide feedback (e.g., too small, too large, identification of content being presented) to the content processing subsystem to indicate whether configuration output (i.e., test content) is viewable and/or presented as desired. Based on the feedback, the content processing subsystem can adjust the default scale of the content to tailor content to the user].
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 20, Roberts discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: predict the eyesight information of the user based on the size of the text displayed on the display and the distance between the electronic apparatus and the user of the external device; and identify the size of the text included in the first UI element based on the predicted eyesight information of the user and the distance between the external device and the electronic apparatus [see para. 0094; different ranges of distances may be predefined and assigned different modification factors (e.g., scaling factors such as a constant, a ratio, or a percentage). Accordingly, content may be modified by applying a modification factor to one more elements of the content, where the modification factor is selected based on the distance. In certain embodiments, relatively larger scaling factors may be applied for relatively greater distances, and relatively smaller scaling factors may be applied for relatively shorter distances].
Regarding claims 6 and 15; Roberts discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to [see para. 0049; Components of the processing subsystem 110 may be configured to modify content in any of the ways described herein, including, but not limited to, adding elements (e.g., visual elements) to content, scaling content (e.g., increasing or decreasing audio volume levels and/or resizing visual elements), removing (e.g., cropping) elements from content, filtering content, anti-aliasing content, smoothing content, stretching content, rotating content, skewing content, adjusting properties (e.g., font, contrast, size, color, orientation, etc.) of content, and otherwise modifying content. Content may be modified dynamically, including as it is being prepared for output to one or more output devices]: based on identifying that the external device is located to a left of the electronic apparatus, control the display to rotate and display the first UI element to the left; and based on identifying that the external device is located to a right of the electronic apparatus, control the display to rotate and display the first UI element to the right [see para. 0078; in cases in which a positional relationship includes an angular relationship approximating a viewing angle of the user 108, for example, content may be modified to help compensate for the viewing angle by adjusting the content, or at least one element of the content, to improve its intelligibility from the viewing angle. In cases in which a positional relationship includes a distance relationship, for example, content may be modified to help compensate for the distance. The content may be modified in any of the ways described above, including, for example, scaling (e.g., enlarging), stretching, rotating, angling, skewing, or otherwise modifying content (or at least one element of the content) to improve its visibility from the approximated viewing angle and/or distance, or to enhance the user experience; which corresponds to be a straightforward choice to consider left rotations for viewing angles from the left and right rotations for viewing angles from the right].
Regarding claim 7; Robert discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: based on the UI being displayed on an image regarding a content, control the display to display the image regarding the content on a first layer and display the UI on a second layer; and control the display to adjust at least one of the size or the shape of the first UI element that is displayed on the second layer, based on the information regarding the location of the external device while the image regarding the content displayed on the first layer is maintained [see para. 0086, 0087 and figures 8-9; one or more attributes or properties (e.g., resolution of visual content) of the content to be scaled may be factored into scaling operations. In certain embodiments, for example, the system 100 may be configured to scale certain elements or types of elements included in content (e.g., textual elements) and not scale other elements or types of elements included in the content (e.g., video elements). Metadata or other information included in or associated with content may be used to identify specific elements or types of elements included in content. The viewing screen displaying both video elements 220 and textual elements 224 of content, textual elements may be scaled (e.g., enlarged) while the video elements are not scaled. By not scaling the video elements of the content, processing demands associated with content scaling are minimized while textual content is enlarged for improved visibility from a distance; which corresponds to customary in the art of user interfaces to display content and a UI on two respective and independent layers, with user interactions taking place only with the UI layer without affecting the content on the content layer].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Robert et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0052624) in view of Chao (CN 103458303A).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Roberts discloses adjusting a font based on distance (see para. 0078) together with [see para. 0048])
Chao discloses adjusting together the size of a UI element and the text included therein based on the determined distance (see para. 0066 and figure 3A]).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chao before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, modifying content based on a position relationship of Roberts to include an electronic device and establishing a communication connection, as taught by Chao, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would be a straightforward implementation choice to then adjust accordingly a size of the containing UI element.
Regarding claim 8; Chao discloses wherein the control signal is a control signal for moving a highlight displayed on a UI element of the plurality of UI elements [see para. 0055; although the description is based on the enlargement or reduction of the display object, in actual use, the first display state and the second display state can also be in other forms. For example, it can also be a highlighted display, in which the display object that needs to be enlarged is marked with a special color or highlighted with a special shape. Those skilled in the art can choose according to the actual use situation. For ease of description, the following embodiments will use the example of zooming in on the displayed object; other cases are similar.; which corresponds to a control signal for moving a highlight displayed on a UI element].
Regarding claim 9, Roberts discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: obtain the information regarding the location of the external device in real time based on the location measurement signal [see para. 0057; The content modification application 143 may be configured to modify content periodically, continually, in real time or near real time, dynamically as output is being prepared to be provided to one or more output devices, or in response to a predefined event such as a user actuating a preconfigured (e.g., dedicated) button or any button on the user device]; and
Chao discloses control the display to adjust at least one of the size or the shape of the first UI element that is displayed, based on the information regarding the location of the external device [see para. 0053, 0054; the first display state is the current display size of the at least one display object, and the second display state is that the display size of the at least one display object in the second display state is larger than the current display size. Simply put, when the distance is far, at least one display object is magnified 13 based on the distance parameter so that the display size of the at least one display object is adapted to the distance, thereby enabling the user to clearly see the display content they want to see even at a distance. Similarly, when the distance parameter indicates that the distance between the user and the electronic device 10 is relatively close, and the current display size is adjusted according to the judgment result in the aforementioned example, the transition from the first display state to the second display state is a shrinking process. [0054] In the above embodiments, although the description is based on the enlargement or reduction of the display object, in actual use, the first display].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4053. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on 571-272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAO H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights