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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office action is responsive to the request for continued examination filed on May 15, 2026 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 20 are now amended.
Claims 1–20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Objections
The previous objections to the title and claims are hereby withdrawn, responsive to the Applicant amending the specification to correct the informalities raised in the previous Office Action.
Prior Art Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0134286 A1 (“Burton”). The Applicant’s arguments concerning Burton’s anticipation of claims 1 and 11 have been considered in light of the amendment, and while they are not persuasive with respect to the features they argue, the Examiner at least agrees that Burton does not explicitly disclose checking whether the line-of-sight information lasts “for a duration greater than a preset threshold to determine that the user has an intention of controlling [a] target window.” The rejection is therefore withdrawn for that reason.
In its place, claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0134286 A1 (“Burton”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0307303 A1 (“Powderly”). As will be discussed in the rejection, the Examiner asserts that Burton provides teaching for every element of claims 1, 11, and 20, save for the preset duration threshold (and the vehicle, in the case of claim 20). Since the rejection continues to rely upon Burton for teaching a feature that the Applicant traverses in the Response, the Examiner will now address the Applicant’s traversal of that finding.
Specifically, the Applicant contends that Burton does not teach or disclosed the claimed “split-screen configuration” because “[a] single, shared physical screen simultaneously displaying multiple independent interfaces is structurally and functionally distinct from a plurality of separate physical screens,” the latter of which is taught by Burton, e.g., in FIG. 5. (Response 10).
The Examiner agrees that a single shared physical screen is different from a plurality of separate physical screens, but respectfully disagrees that claims 1, 11, or 20 require a single shared physical screen.
The claim language only says that the display interfaces are “displayed and split from a single physical display screen,” rather than being “displayed and split on a single physical display screen.” In English, the word “from” may be “used as a function word to indicate physical separation or an act or condition of removal, abstention, exclusion, release, subtraction, or differentiation.” From, Meriam-Webster.com Dictionary, <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/from> (emphasis added). Consequently, according to the plain meaning of the word “from” in English, the plurality of display interfaces may be split across multiple different screens simultaneously in the split screen mode, rather than being confined to display on a single screen. This interpretation is reasonable because it comports with the plain meaning of the claim language (per the discussion above), and also because it is not inconsistent with the specification,1 which provides several examples of the invention splitting the interfaces from a single physical screen in the split-screen mode. See, e.g., Spec. FIGS. 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Burton likewise teaches a first user 510 controlling a spreadsheet 556 (the claimed target window), which is displayed on a viewscreen 550 (the claimed “one of a plurality of display interfaces”), while simultaneously, “first user 510 holds a first device 512 (here a mobile phone) and is wearing a second device 514 (a smartwatch) that are both equipped to offer the services of the VA,” and “second user 520 has brought a third device 522 (a mobile phone) and a fourth device 524 (a tablet) to the room, the third user 530 has brought a fifth device 532 (a mobile phone) worn on a holster, and the fourth user 540 has brought a sixth device 542 (a mobile phone) and a seventh device 544 (a laptop), where each of these devices is configured for connection to a network and access to the VA service.” Burton ¶ 72.
The Applicant’s argument that these are different display devices is not persuasive, because the claim does not require a single split screen; it only requires a screen that has been split, potentially such that different portions of the user interface are displayed on different screens.
The Applicant’s remaining arguments concern whether or not the other cited references remedy the alleged deficiency from Burton. However, since Burton has no such deficiency, these arguments are not relevant.
Accordingly, Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Burton in view of Powderly, and claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 are further rejected over Burton and Powderly in view of Choudhary or Parker, as indicated below.
For these reasons, the Applicant’s request for a Notice of Allowance (Response 13) is respectfully denied.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
I. Burton and Powderly teach at least claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20.
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0134286 A1 (“Burton”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0307303 A1 (“Powderly”).
Claim 1
Burton teaches:
An interface control method applied to an interface control apparatus, the method comprising:
Reference is made to FIG. 2, which illustrates a “processing environment 230,” implemented as a computing device, that performs the claimed method as part of its normal operation by executing the code in its various modules. Burton ¶ 27. “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device.” MPEP § 2112.02.
Burton also explicitly discloses the method 800 performed by the processing environment 230 as well, see Burton FIG. 8, but for the sake of brevity, this rejection will focus on Burton’s disclosure of the normal operations performed by processing environment 230.
obtaining a speech instruction of a user;
“[A] parallel signals processing component 232 of the multiple device response detector 240 can receive and process data from devices 206 that indicates that two or more devices in a device neighborhood have received a similar spoken utterance at or around the same time.” Burton ¶ 41. Spoken utterance include “commands or requests,” Burton ¶ 47, and therefore fall within the scope of the claimed speech instruction.
obtaining a sound source location where the user delivers the speech instruction, based on a sound field distribution obtained through measuring sound pressure near the sound source location.
Additionally, “a signal characteristics component 224 may receive and analyze attention data collected by each of the candidate devices at or around the time the spoken utterance 212 occurred, for example via attention sensors 214a, 214b, 214bb, 214c. This information can be used to assign a likelihood of that a particular candidate device was the target device.” Burton ¶ 42. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 4, this data can include “characteristics of the audio signal provided by utterances 410, such as but not limited to amplitude (loudness) 412, audibility 414, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) 416.” Burton ¶ 60. Such characteristics fall within the scope of sound source location because “if a first candidate device and a second candidate device both receive the same spoken utterance input, but the amplitude, audibility, and/or quality of the audio signal is greater for the first candidate device (with less noise), the system can determine that the first candidate device is more likely to represent the target device.” Burton ¶ 60.
“For example, if a first candidate device and a second candidate device both receive the same spoken utterance input, but the amplitude, audibility, and/or quality of the audio signal is greater for the first candidate device (with less noise), the system can determine that the first candidate device is more likely to represent the target device. In other words, the SNR and loudness of a user's speech is likely to be higher at the device endpoint they are close to and intended to interact with.” Burton ¶ 60.
obtaining line-of-sight information of the user;
The attention data obtained by signal characteristics component 224 further includes “eye-gaze data 432 may be collected by some or all of the candidate devices at or around the time at which the spoken utterance is received.” Burton ¶ 62.
determining a target window on an interface based on (i) the sound source location and (ii) the line-of-sight information indicating a line of sight of the user stays on the target window
After using all of the above information—that is, both (i) the characteristics of the audio signal 412–416 and (ii) the eye-gaze data 432—to assign a likelihood level to each candidate device as the target device, a device ranking component 226 ranks the candidate devices, and the ranking is “used by a device selector 228 to select the device that was most likely to represent the target device.” Burton ¶ 42.
Note that with respect to (ii), the system utilizes “various eye tracking algorithms,” which “are used to identify and analyze patterns of visual attention of individuals as they perform specific tasks.” Burton ¶ 63. In other words, with respect to limitation (ii), Burton at least discloses using line-of-sight information to determine a user has an intention of controlling the target window, and while the concept of “attention” at least suggests a gaze that lasts “for a duration greater than a preset threshold,” Burton does not expressly anticipate said threshold.
wherein the target window is one of a plurality of display interfaces simultaneously displayed and split from a single physical screen in a split-screen mode,
Careful readers of the above claim language should observe that the “display interfaces” are “displayed and split from a single physical display screen,” rather than being “displayed and split on a single physical display screen.” In English, the word “from” may be “used as a function word to indicate physical separation or an act or condition of removal, abstention, exclusion, release, subtraction, or differentiation.” From, Meriam-Webster.com Dictionary, <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/from> (emphasis added). Consequently, according to the plain meaning of the word “from” in English, the plurality of display interfaces may be split across multiple different screens simultaneously in the split screen mode, rather than being confined to display on a single screen. This interpretation is reasonable because it comports with the plain meaning of the claim language (per the discussion above), and also because it is not inconsistent with the specification,2 which provides several examples of the invention splitting the interfaces from a single physical screen in the split-screen mode. See, e.g., Spec. FIGS. 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Burton likewise teaches a first user 510 controlling a spreadsheet 556 (the claimed target window), which is displayed on a viewscreen 550 (the claimed “one of a plurality of display interfaces”), while simultaneously, “first user 510 holds a first device 512 (here a mobile phone) and is wearing a second device 514 (a smartwatch) that are both equipped to offer the services of the VA,” and “second user 520 has brought a third device 522 (a mobile phone) and a fourth device 524 (a tablet) to the room, the third user 530 has brought a fifth device 532 (a mobile phone) worn on a holster, and the fourth user 540 has brought a sixth device 542 (a mobile phone) and a seventh device 544 (a laptop), where each of these devices is configured for connection to a network and access to the VA service.” Burton ¶ 72.
wherein the plurality of display interfaces are controlled by different users independently;
As mentioned above, the plurality of display devices 512–544 are controlled by different users 510–540. Burton ¶ 72.
and controlling the target window based on the speech instruction.
“The most likely target device is then selected by a device selector 228 as the device that will render a response to the spoken utterance for a VA interaction.” Burton ¶ 42; see also Burton ¶¶ 24 (FIG. 1B, visual presentation 140) and 75 (FIG. 6, indication 600).
In view of the foregoing, the only difference between Burton and the claimed invention is Burton’s disclosure of the line-of-sight information in limitation (ii), i.e., Burton’s line-of-sight information is not evaluated for whether it dwells on a window “for a duration greater than a preset threshold.”
Powderly, however, teaches a technique for determining a target window on an interface based on:
line-of-sight information indicating a line of sight of the user stays on the target window for a duration greater than a preset threshold to determine the user has an intention of controlling the target window
“[T]he user may move their head or eyes to look at different real or virtual objects in the user's FOR. If the user's gaze at a particular real or virtual object is longer than a threshold time, the real or virtual object may be selected as the user input.” Powderly ¶ 126.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Powderly’s known technique of using a predetermined threshold gaze time for intent confirmation to Burton’s known device and method of ascertaining a user’s intent to control a window based on the user’s speech and line-of-sight input.
The rationale for reaching this conclusion is that it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(D.))
In support of this conclusion, and pursuant to the guidance at MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(D.)), the Examiner observes that the evidence resolves in favor of the following facts:
(1) The prior art contained a “base” device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement.” The evidence for the base device is provided above, with each claim element mapped to a corresponding portion of Burton’s disclosure, except for the threshold time, which is seen as the improvement. Those mappings are hereby reincorporated by reference as the basis for finding fact (1).
(2) The prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, or product). The evidence for this finding was also provided above, via the citation to paragraph 126 of Powderly’s disclosure of the threshold time technique (which is also incorporated by reference). The applicability of the technique is also evident from the references: both the base method and the technique involve the use of eye tracking to determine a user’s focus of attention in a user interface.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. The evidence for this is twofold. First, Burton expressly directs the person of ordinary skill in the art to apply and utilize known eye tracking algorithms and techniques for ascertaining the eye-gaze data 432. See Burton ¶ 63. Second, as a general matter, the electrical and computer arts are a relatively predictable fields of endeavor, because computers are deterministic machines that are built to follow instructions. Specifically, in this case, since the proposed combination simply involves adding an additional “if statement” to Burton’s existing computer program (i.e., Powderly’s time threshold), the end result is that the user’s intention to use a particular window is only determined when the eye-gaze data 432 includes the user holding his gaze at the window for the threshold amount of time. In other words, the combination yields predictable results because the result of adding one piece of logic to another is simply the result of the combined logic.
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Powderly’s known technique to Burton’s known device and method.
Claim 2
Burton and Powderly teach the method according to claim 1,
wherein the target window is closest to the sound source location and is located in a line-of-sight direction indicated by the line-of-sight information.
As shown in FIG. 4, device selector 228 uses a combination of both the audio data 410 and eye-gaze data 432 at the time of the utterance, to “provide a clearer indication as to which device was the intended target device.” Burton ¶ 62.
In more detail, the system can determine “if a first candidate device and a second candidate device both receive the same spoken utterance input, but the amplitude, audibility, and/or quality of the audio signal is greater for the first candidate device (with less noise),” Burton ¶ 60, but at the same time, “eye-gaze data 432 may be collected by some or all of the candidate devices at or around the time at which the spoken utterance is received” to “provide a clearer indication as to which device was the intended target device,” Burton ¶ 62, where “gaze that is directed toward a device may be used to identify an intent to invoke the services of the virtual assistant at that device.” Burton ¶ 73.
Claim 3
Burton, as combined with Powderly, teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein a window closest to the sound source location is a first window,
“[I]f a first candidate device and a second candidate device both receive the same spoken utterance input, but the amplitude, audibility, and/or quality of the audio signal is greater for the first candidate device (with less noise), the system can determine that the first candidate device is more likely to represent the target device.” Burton ¶ 60.
a window in a line-of-sight direction indicated by the line-of-sight information is a second window,
“Furthermore, attention data 430 as collected by various sensors of the candidate devices may provide a clearer indication as to which device was the intended target device.” Burton ¶ 62.
Burton does not appear to explicitly contemplate a preset priority between the utterance data 410 over the attention data 430, or vice versa. This leads to a problem in cases where the utterance data 410 and the attention data 430 conflict with one another (e.g., if the user is looking at a device further from where he is speaking).
However, many solutions to this problem were known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, Powderly, teaches a technique that, when applied to Burton’s base system, results in a system that determines a target device (which is displaying a target application window), wherein determining the target window on the interface based on the sound source location and the line-of-sight information comprises:
determining the target window based on a priority of the sound source location and a priority of the line-of-sight information, wherein based on the priority of the sound source location being higher than the priority of the line-of-sight information, the first window is the target window; or based on the priority of the line-of-sight information being higher than the priority of the sound source location, the second window is the target window.
Powderly teaches a system that determines which “target virtual object” a user intended to command “based on multiple inputs received,” that is, by analyzing multiple different modes of input, including head poses, voice, and gaze direction. Powderly ¶¶ 181 and 186. As shown in FIGS. 17A–17C, the system mixes its confidences in each mode of input to determine a final confidence level about which application is the intended recipient of the command. Powderly ¶ 185.
In addition, depending on context, each “input mode or a score may be associated with a weight,” e.g., “in a subway, airplane, or train, voice commands may be given less weight than head or eye poses, since a user may not wish to speak out loud.” Powderly ¶ 186.
Claim 4
Burton and Powderly teach the method according to claim 3,
wherein the priority of the sound source location and the priority of the line-of-sight information are predefined.
“The weights may be user adjustable to permit the user to selectively adjust the ‘responsiveness’ of the multimodal interaction with the HMD.” Powderly ¶ 186. For example, as shown in FIG. 24, the user may adjust slider bars 2422–2426 to pre-determine how much weight should be given to one modality of input over others. Powderly ¶ 230.
Claim 5
Burton and Powderly teach the method according to claim 4,
wherein the sound source location has first priority information, the line-of-sight information has second priority information, the first priority information is used to determine the priority of the sound source location, and the second priority information is used to determine the priority of the line-of-sight information.
Each input mode “may be associated with a weight,” e.g., with voice commands given one weight while gaze and/or head pose is given a different weight. Powderly ¶¶ 186 and 230.
Claim 7
Burton and Powderly teach the method according to claim 3,
wherein there is a first correlation between the sound source location and a service indicated by the speech instruction,
As shown in FIG. 4, “characteristics of the audio signal provided by utterances 410, such as but not limited to amplitude (loudness) 412, audibility 414, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) 416” provide a first source of likelihood, for each of the devices in the system, that a user wishes to invoke an assistant on a particular device endpoint. Burton ¶ 60.
and there is a second correlation between the line-of-sight information and the service indicated by the speech instruction.
“Furthermore, attention data 430 as collected by various sensors of the candidate devices may provide a clearer indication as to which device was the intended target device. For example, eye-gaze data 432 may be collected by some or all of the candidate devices at or around the time at which the spoken utterance is received.” Burton ¶ 62. In other words, the attention data 430 includes information about the likelihood that a user wishes to invoke the assistant on a particular device endpoint. See Burton ¶ 62.
Claim 8
Burton and Powderly teach the method according to claim 7, further comprising:
adjusting the first correlation and the second correlation based on an execution result of the speech instruction.
Sometimes, “there remains ambiguity between candidate devices,” Burton ¶ 42, e.g., if there is a tie between the utterance data 410 and the attention data 430 (which, again, correspond to the claimed first and second correlation for the reasons given in claim 7). In such a case, “the system 200 can choose a most recently used or a most frequently used candidate device,” Burton ¶ 42, thus disregarding the correlation of one modality for another, on the basis of the last device that successfully executed prior commands (most recently used device), or on the basis of the device that most often successfully executed prior commands (most frequently used device)
“If there remains ambiguity between candidate devices, the system 200 can choose a most recently used or a most frequently used candidate device.” Burton ¶ 42.
Claims 11–15, 17, and 18
Claims 11–15, 17, and 18 are directed to the same interface control apparatus mentioned in claims 1–5, 7, and 8 that performs the same method recited therein, but further including a memory and processor configured to perform the method as part of its normal operation. Burton and Powderly teach that process for the reasons given in the rejection of claims 1–5, 7, and 8, and further teach a “processing environment 230,” implemented as a computing device with the same components, that performs the claimed method as part of its normal operation by executing the code in its various modules. See Burton ¶ 27.
Therefore, claims 11–15, 17, and 18 are rejected over this finding and the findings and rationale set forth in the rejections of claims 1–5, 7, and 8 above.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites a vehicle that comprises exactly the same interface control apparatus as claim 11. The combination of Burton and Powderly teach the same interface control apparatus as recited in claim 11, and further teach that such an apparatus may be disposed “in a subway, airplane, or train.” Powderly ¶ 186. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for all of the reasons given in the rejection of claim 11, further combined with Powderly’s further teaching of using the same apparatus in a vehicle (subway, airplane or train).
II. Burton, Powderly, and Choudhary teach claims 6 and 16.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Burton and Powderly as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0012770 A1 (“Chaudhary”).
Claim 6
Burton and Powderly teach the method according to claim 5, but do not appear to explicitly disclose adjusting the first priority information and the second priority information based on the execution result.
Choudhary, however, teaches a method comprising:
obtaining an execution result of the speech instruction;
As shown in FIG. 2, a multi-modal user interface system maintains history data 258, 268 of each user 250, 260 of the system “based on historical trends corresponding to multi-modal inputs of the first user processed by the multi-modal recognition engine 130,” Chaudhary ¶ 50, or the second user, Chaudhary ¶ 51, respectively. “For example, the processor 108 may determine, such as based on the first history data 258, that speech inputs from the first user are less reliably interpreted as compared to gesture inputs from the first user.” Chaudhary ¶ 53.
and adjusting the first priority information and the second priority information based on the execution result.
As a result of the history data, the system adjusts the weight that it applies to each mode of input for that user, accordingly. For example, if the first user’s history 258 indicates his speech inputs are less reliably interpreted (i.e., the result of his speech commands tends to fail or be wrong), “the weight W1 may be reduced from a default W1 value, and the weight W2 may be increased from a default W2 value in the first weight data 254 to reduce reliance on speech inputs and to increase reliance on gesture inputs from the first user.” Chaudhary ¶ 53.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Burton and Noda’s prioritized multi-modal input system with Chaudhary’s technique of prioritizing the different modes of input based on the results of past voice commands. One would have been motivated to apply Chaudhary’s weighting technique to better accommodate differences among the users. “For example, the first user and the second user may have different accents, different styles of gesturing, different body mechanics when performing video input, or any combination thereof.” Chaudhary ¶ 51.
Claim 16
The additional limitations of claim 16 (narrow version) are substantially similar to those recited in claim 6, and therefore, claim 16 is rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided in the rejection above.
III. Burton, Powderly, and Parker teach claims 9 and 19.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Burton, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0307771 A1 (“Parker”).
Claim 9
Burton teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling the target window based on the speech instruction comprises:
displaying, in the target window, an icon corresponding to a service indicated by the speech instruction
“In FIG. 6, the viewscreen 550 presents an indication 600 that the spoken utterance issued by the first user 510 has been received and is being processed by the computing device 552.” Burton ¶ 75.
Burton does not appear to explicitly disclose that its indication 600 further includes “one or more indexes,” i.e., as described in paragraph 79 of the present disclosure.
Parker, however, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling the target window based on the speech instruction comprises:
displaying, in the target window, an icon corresponding to a service indicated by the speech instruction, wherein the icon comprises one or more indexes.
“Interface 310 provides a number of soft buttons, tiles, icons or text for the driver to select various options for the infotainment system,” Parker ¶ 54, which “may change based upon the driver's point of focus on the display itself.” Parker ¶ 60. Accordingly, the interface 310 displays one or more icons or tiles (the claimed indexes) corresponding to the interaction set that is currently active (based on the driver’s point of focus). See Parker ¶¶ 61–63.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Parker’s “soft buttons, tiles, icons or text” to Burton’s indication 600, thereby providing the claimed one or more indexes as part of that indication 600. One would have been motivated to add Parker’s analogous indexes to Burton’s indication 600 because this would reduce the number of button-presses the user would need to issue in order to navigate the user interface. See Parker ¶ 62.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 9, and therefore rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 9.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150169051 A1, US 20110148926 A1, US 20120113151 A1, US 20170269771 A1, but especially US 20170127011 A1, each teach the feature argued by the Applicant in the present response, but not yet claimed (i.e., a single display apparatus with a split screen meant for multiple users, where selected portions of the screen are determined based on user presence or gaze).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” MPEP § 2111.01 (subsection I.).
2 “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” MPEP § 2111.01 (subsection I.).
Prosecution Insights