Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited references do not teach or suggest in the illumination mode, For example, the cursor's positioning in Flack is only restricted when the system is operating in the display tracking mode. In the display tracking mode of Flack, however, the cursor is not used for selectively interacting with the content displayed on the display screen, including a graphical user interface. Instead, the cursor is a reference tool that indicates which portion of the larger virtual image is currently being displayed on the display screen. The cursor does not selectively interact with a graphical user interface in the display tracking mode. The user has to toggle the display tracking mode OFF in order to allow the cursor to selectively interact with a graphical user interface and other content displayed on the display device. But, the cursor is not restricted to a certain area of the display when the display tracking mode is turned OFF. Flack does not describe a mode in which a cursor is restricted to a certain area of a display screen and is also able to be moved relative to the content displayed in that area for selectively interacting with a graphical user interface. Therefore, Flack does not remedy the shortcomings of Holmes with respect to the subject matter recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Holmes discloses a computer device control a display operate in an illumination mode and a normal mode, and to switch between the illumination mode and the normal mode. The computer device is obviously able to move cursor around in the display in the normal mode. Flack discloses restricting a cursor in a cursor zone of a display screen in a display mode (see abstract Embodiments of this invention include the cursor being limited to movement within a cursor zone, and reflecting what portion of a virtual space is on display by having a corresponding position with the cursor zone. and paragraphs [0028]-[0031]) [0029] FIG. 6 shows a typical example of a cursor 10 within a cursor zone 30. While FIG. 7 shows actual restriction of the cursor's movements by the cursor zone 30. . In paragraph [0040], Flack discloses using the cursor to scroll image contents. In paragraph [0031], Flack discloses the cursor zone could be a word processing, which obviously allows the cursor to interact with the image contents in the cursor zone. See also claim 2. “ wherein the cursor is limited to movement within a cursor zone, whereby the cursor is at a position in the cursor zone that correlates to the portion of the data being shown on the display” Therefore, the combination of Holmes and Flack clearly teach the claimed limitations as argued by the applicant.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 13,20-21 and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US 12190553) in view of Flack et al (US 20020084981).
Claims 1, and 20-21 Holmes discloses a computer display-based illumination system comprising:
a memory (Fig. 2) configured to store program instructions; and
one or more processors operably connected to the memory, wherein the program instructions are executable by the one or more processors to (Fig. 2):
control a display device to operate in an illumination mode and a normal mode, and to switch between the illumination mode and the normal mode (Figs. 2-6, 8-17);
display content to a user of the display device on a first area of a display screen of the display device (Figs. 2-6, 8-17); and
control the display device to provide an edge light along a different, second area (168, Figs. 2-6, 8-17) of the display screen by emitting a constant light from the second area for an extended period of time to illuminate the user of the display device (col. 1, line 55 - col. 2, line 11; Fig. 17, col. 14, lines 1-9),
wherein, in the normal mode, the one or more processors control the display device to display the content on both the first and second areas of the display screen without providing the edge light (Figs. 2-6). The computer display inherently allows a cursor to move on the display responsive to the user manipulating the user input device.
Holmes does not, but Flack discloses restricting a cursor, for selectively interacting with the content displayed on the display screen, to the first area of the display screen by preventing the cursor from moving into the second area that provides the edge light, and move the cursor along the first area of the display screen relative to the content that is displayed for selectively interacting with a graphical user interface, in response to the user manipulating a user input device that is communicatively connected to the one or more processors (Abstract, [0028]-[0031]). , in a preferred embodiment of this invention, the cursor has a limited field in which it can move, called a cursor zone, which is generally less than the perimeter of the display. In the example given above, when the top left-hand portion of the contents/virtual space is being displayed, the cursor is in the top left-hand portion of the cursor zone. this cursor zone can be of any size and shape, but practically speaking, would be less than the perimeter of the actual physical display. Optimally, the cursor zone has a perimeter the same as, or slightly less than, the perimeter of the part of the display that shows the virtual space.
[0029] FIG. 6 shows a typical example of a cursor 10 within a cursor zone 30. While FIG. 7 shows actual restriction of the cursor's movements by the cursor zone 30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use Flack’s disclosed features in the invention of Holmes to prevent the displayed content from activating unintentionally.
Claim 5,23 Holmes discloses the one or more processors are configured to switch the display device from the normal mode to the illumination mode in response to receiving a command message generated by a user input device configured to be operated by the user (Fig. 18, col. 14, lines 10-33).
Claim 6,24 Holmes discloses the one or more processors are configured to switch the display device from the normal mode to the illumination mode in response to detecting a request to initiate at least one of a video conference, a video recording, or a video stream that is associated with the display device (col. 3, lines 32-54; col. 5, lines 1-22).
Claims 7 and 25 Holmes disclose the one or more processors are configured to: analyze image data depicting the user, the image data generated by a camera associated with the display device; and
switch the display device from the normal mode to the illumination mode in response to determining that the user is in a low light condition based on the image data (col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 22)
Claim 8, 26 Holmes discloses the one or more processors are configured to determine that the user is in the low light condition based on a value of a brightness of at least a portion of a face of the user in the image data being below a designated threshold value (Fig. 18, col. 14, lines 10-33).
Claims 9 and 27 Holmes disclose the one or more processors are configured to control the display device to provide the edge light along a border of the display screen that fully surrounds the first area (Figs. 3-4, 11).
Claim 10, 28 Holmes discloses the one or more processors are configured to control the display device to provide the edge light along at least one edge of the display screen without fully surrounding the first area (Figs. 5, 9-10).
Claim 11, 29 Holmes discloses the one or more processors are configured to: analyze image data depicting a face of the user, the image data generated by a camera associated with the display device; and select the at least one edge of the display screen along which to provide the edge light based on the image data (col. 4, lines 53-67).
Claims 13, Holmes discloses the one or more processors are configured to: receive a command message generated by a user input device configured to be operated by the user; and
control the display device to modify at least one of (i) a size of the second area of the display screen that provides the edge light, (ii) a brightness of the edge light, or (iii) a color temperature of the edge light, based on the command message (col. 4, lines 53-67).
5. Claim(s) 3, 12, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US 12190553) in view of Flack et al (US 20020084981) as applied to claims 1 and 20 and 21 above, and further in view of Sommerlade et al. (US 11587528).
Claims 3, 12 and 22 Holmes does not but Sommerlade discloses scaling down a graphical user interface that is displayed on the display screen when switching from a first display mode to a second display mode so that the graphical user interface is confined to a first area of the display screen in the second display mode (col. 7, lines 6-18; col. 7, line 58 – co. 8 , line 8; Figs. 2-3), and selecting an area of a display screen along which to provide light for a location of the light to correspond to a low light region of the face of a user (col. 7, lines 6-18; col. 7, line 58 – co. 8 , line 8; Figs. 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use Sommerlade’s features in the invention of Holmes to scale down the graphical user interface and to position the edge light so that the graphical user interface can be prevented from obscuring by the edge light.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goodrich Us2026/0030849. Teaches CURSOR FUNCTIONALITY FOR AUGMENTED REALITY CONTENT IN MESSAGING SYSTEMS.
7. Applicant argues the cited references do not teach or suggest in the illumination mode, the cursor is restricted to the first area and cannot move into the second area (that provides the edge light). While in this illumination mode, the cursor moves along the first area (relative to the content displayed in that first area) for selectively interacting with a graphical user interface response to a user input device being manipulated. Applicant further argues Flack does not describe a mode in which a cursor is restricted to a certain area of a display screen and is also able to be moved relative to the content displayed in that area for selectively interacting with a graphical user interface. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Holmes discloses a computer device control a display operate in an illumination mode and a normal mode, and to switch between the illumination mode and the normal mode. The computer device is obviously able to move cursor around in the display in the normal mode. Slack discloses restricting a cursor in a cursor zone of a display screen in a display mode (see abstract and paragraphs [0028]-[0031]). In paragraph [0040], Slack discloses using the cursor to scroll image contents. In paragraph [0031], Slack discloses the cursor zone could be a word processing, which obviously allows the cursor to interact with the image contents in the cursor zone. Therefore, the combination of Holmes and Slack clearly teach the claimed limitations as argued by the applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE whose telephone number is (571)272-3017. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4.00 p.m..
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, TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626
3/17/26
TG