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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment dated 6/4/2026.
2. Claims 1-15 are pending in the case.
3. Claim 16 is cancelled.
4. Claims 1, 12, 13 and 14 are independent claims.
Applicant’s Response
5. In Applicant’s response dated 3/3/2026, applicant has amended the following:
a) Claims 1-7 and 11-15
b) Figure 3
c) Specification
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the following objections and rejections previously set forth in Office Action dated 3/3/2026 are withdrawn:
a) Objection to claim 13
b) Objection to drawings
c) 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection to claims 2-5
4) 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) Rejection to claims 1-12 and 14-16
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vranjes et al. (hereinafter “Vranjes”), U.S. Published Application No. 20160034155 A1.
Claim 1:
Vranjes teaches A method performed by a management device and comprising: managing at least one display window of a virtual workstation in an immersive environment, the display window being associated with a processing reproducing data, the managing comprising:
(e.g., managing application windows in a virtual immersive environment par. 42; Thus, in some cases multi-application environment module 118 presents a multi-application environment as an immersive environment par. 54; Alternately or additionally, multi-application environment 202 may be implemented as a desktop, virtual or otherwise, and include a control area, which is shown as application management UI 210 or a start menu (not shown).)
setting a parameter for reproducing the display window, during a modification of the display window, to a value that is a function of a current user context related to a user capability in a real environment. (e.g., setting a new size or position (i.e., parameter) of an application window based on dragging input by a user (i.e., current user context such as declared input of a user interface as described by instant specification par. 85) Examiner considers dragging input performed by a moving hand/arm to be related to user’s mobile capability in a real environment par. 63; In the context of workspace 400, assume window 438 is being dragged into a corner region of workspace 400. Here, window manager 132 identifies an edge of application window 410, which is adjacent to the region into which application window 438 is moving. Par. 64; At 306, a size or a position is determined for the application window based on the edge of the other application window. The size or position of the application window may be determined such that the application window fills the region to the edge of the other application window. Par. 64; At 306, a size or a position is determined for the application window based on the edge of the other application window. The size or position of the application window may be determined such that the application window fills the region to the edge of the other application window. In some cases, the size or position is determined such that an edge of the application window aligns with a complimentary edge of an adjacent application window. In such cases, the application window and adjacent application window may have a same width or a same height. Par. 69; Placement of the application window may be responsive to input to add, switch, or move an application window in the multi-application environment. In some cases, the input is a gesture or edge trigger action in which an application window, or visual representation thereof, is dragged to or moved against an edge of the multi-application environment. )
Claim 2 depends on claim 1:
Vranjes teaches the method comprising: the management device receiving data relating to the current user context from a user interface or from a user interface or from a sensor that measures the current user context;and the management device setting the value of the parameter as a function of the current user context received data. (e.g., computer interface receiving interaction data via determining the value of a size or position of application window based on user input (i.e., current user context) par. 63; In the context of workspace 400, assume window 438 is being dragged into a corner region of workspace 400. par. 64; At 306, a size or a position is determined for the application window based on the edge of the other application window. The size or position of the application window may be determined such that the application window fills the region to the edge of the other application window. In some cases, the size or position is determined such that an edge of the application window aligns with a complimentary edge of an adjacent application window. In such cases, the application window and adjacent application window may have a same width or a same height. par. 69; Placement of the application window may be responsive to input to add, switch, or move an application window in the multi-application environment. In some cases, the input is a gesture or edge trigger action in which an application window, or visual representation thereof, is dragged to or moved against an edge of the multi-application environment.)
Claim 3 depends on claim 1:
Vranjes teaches wherein the value of the parameter is a function of a set reproduction zone, in which a reproduction of a display window of the virtual workstation is subject to a reproduction rule, the set reproduction zone depending on the current user context. (e.g., changing size of an application window based on region of the workspace which depends on the user input (i.e., current user context) Examiner considers “aligning with a complimentary edge of an adjacent application window as an example of recited “reproduction rule” par. 63; In the context of workspace 400, assume window 438 is being dragged into a corner region of workspace 400. Here, window manager 132 identifies an edge of application window 410, which is adjacent to the region into which application window 438 is moving. Par. 64; At 306, a size or a position is determined for the application window based on the edge of the other application window. The size or position of the application window may be determined such that the application window fills the region to the edge of the other application window. In some cases, the size or position is determined such that an edge of the application window aligns with a complimentary edge of an adjacent application window.)
Claim 4 depends on claim 3:
Vranjes teaches the method comprising generating the set reproduction zone as a function of the current user context prior to the setting the parameter to the value. (e.g., generating user-defined regions of a workspace prior to determining the size of dragged application windows par. 58; In some cases, a user may define or configure particular areas (e.g., sections or strips of screen area) within the multi-application environment as user-defined regions. par. 59; The region may be fixed, predefined, or dynamic, such as a region that changes size or position due to an orientation of a display or type of input received. In some cases, a region may be associated with a corresponding operation, such as a “snap” operation, which fills the region with an application window at a predefined size or predefined position.)
Claim 5 depends on claim 3:
Vranjes teaches wherein the reproduction rule associated with the set reproduction zone is a rule from among the following rules: an authorization for reproducing display windows in the set reproduction zone, called authorized zone; a prohibition for reproducing display windows in the set reproduction zone, called prohibited zone; a prioritization for reproducing display windows in the set reproduction zone, called ideal zone, as long as the set reproduction zone has enough free space for reproducing the display window; and a tolerance for reproducing display windows in the set reproduction zone, called tolerance zone, in which reproduction of a display window is authorized if the ideal zone does not have enough free space for reproducing the display window. (e.g., user-defined regions of a workspace that allow dragged application windows (i.e., authorized zone) par. 58; In some cases, selection of the region is received via an application window being added to, switched to, or moved within the multi-application environment. par. 59; The region may be fixed, predefined, or dynamic, such as a region that changes size or position due to an orientation of a display or type of input received.)
Claim 6 depends on claim 1:
Vranjes teaches wherein modifying the display window is a modification from among the following modifications: opening the display window; moving the display window; and resizing the display window. (e.g., moving application window into a region of a workspace par. 63; In the context of workspace 400, assume window 438 is being dragged into a corner region of workspace 400. Here, window manager 132 identifies an edge of application window 410, which is adjacent to the region into which application window 438 is moving.)
Claim 7 depends on claim 1:
Vranjes teaches wherein the parameter for reproducing the display window is a parameter from among the following parameters: a reproduction position of the display window; a width of the display window; a height of the display window; and a size of the display window. (e.g., position, width, height and size of application window are determined parameters par. 64; In some cases, the size or position is determined such that an edge of the application window aligns with a complimentary edge of an adjacent application window. In such cases, the application window and adjacent application window may have a same width or a same height.)
Claim 8 depends on claim 1:
Vranjes teaches wherein the method comprises: measuring the current user context by using at least one sensor. (e.g., touch based sensors par. 38; Input mechanisms 142 may include gesture-sensitive sensors and devices, such as touch-based sensors and movement-tracking sensors (e.g., camera-based), as well as mice (free-standing or integral with a keyboard), a stylus, touch pads, accelerometers, and microphones with accompanying voice recognition software, to name a few. Input mechanisms 136 may be separate or integral with displays 134; integral examples include gesture-sensitive displays with integrated touch-sensitive or motion-sensitive sensors.)
Claim 9 depends on claim 1:
Vranjes teaches wherein the method comprises requesting the current user context by using a user interface and receiving a declared user context from the user interface. (e.g., presenting user defined regions of workspace responsive to gesture input is considered implicitly requesting current user context via user interface and receiving the gesture input is an example of receiving a declared user context par. 38; Input mechanisms 142 may include gesture-sensitive sensors and devices, such as touch-based sensors and movement-tracking sensors (e.g., camera-based) par. 58; In some cases, a user may define or configure particular areas (e.g., sections or strips of screen area) within the multi-application environment as user-defined regions. par. 59; The region may be fixed, predefined, or dynamic, such as a region that changes size or position due to an orientation of a display or type of input received.)
Claim 11 depends on claim 1:
Vranjes teaches wherein the current user context comprises data relating to a user during the modification of the display window from among the following data:
declared data of the current user context; (e.g., gesture input; par. 38; Input mechanisms 142 may include gesture-sensitive sensors and devices, such as touch-based sensors and movement-tracking sensors (e.g., camera-based)
measured data of the current user context; (e.g., sensors measuring data of gesture input par. 38; Input mechanisms 142 may include gesture-sensitive sensors and devices, such as touch-based sensors and movement-tracking sensors (e.g., camera-based))
position data of the user; (e.g., sensors measuring position data of gesture input par. 38; Input mechanisms 142 may include gesture-sensitive sensors and devices, such as touch-based sensors and movement-tracking sensors (e.g., camera-based))
field of vision data of the user;
mobility data of the user;
and data relating to the real environment in which the user is located.
Independent Claim 12:
Vranjes teaches A method implemented by a device and comprising:
managing an immersive environment comprising a virtual workstation,
the virtual workstation comprising a display window associated with a processing reproducing data,
(e.g., managing application windows in a virtual immersive environment par. 42; Thus, in some cases multi-application environment module 118 presents a multi-application environment as an immersive environment par. 54; Alternately or additionally, multi-application environment 202 may be implemented as a desktop, virtual or otherwise, and include a control area, which is shown as application management UI 210 or a start menu (not shown).)
the managing comprising: triggering a modification of a display window, the triggering of the modification of the display window triggering setting a parameter for reproducing a display window to a value that is determined as a function of a current user context in a real environment prior to the reproduction of the modified display window. (e.g., triggering by dragging an application window to a region of a workspace allows the window manager to identify when to set parameter for a size and/or position parameter of the application window. Examiner considers dragging input performed by a moving hand/arm to be related to user’s mobile capability in a real environment. Examiner notes that the dragging is prior to reproduction of the application window and that based on dragging input by a user is considered “a function current user context” such as declared input of a user interface as described by instant specification par. 85; par. 63; In the context of workspace 400, assume window 438 is being dragged into a corner region of workspace 400. Here, window manager 132 identifies an edge of application window 410, which is adjacent to the region into which application window 438 is moving. Par. 64; At 306, a size or a position is determined for the application window based on the edge of the other application window. The size or position of the application window may be determined such that the application window fills the region to the edge of the other application window. Par. 64; At 306, a size or a position is determined for the application window based on the edge of the other application window. The size or position of the application window may be determined such that the application window fills the region to the edge of the other application window. In some cases, the size or position is determined such that an edge of the application window aligns with a complimentary edge of an adjacent application window. In such cases, the application window and adjacent application window may have a same width or a same height. Par. 69; Placement of the application window may be responsive to input to add, switch, or move an application window in the multi-application environment. In some cases, the input is a gesture or edge trigger action in which an application window, or visual representation thereof, is dragged to or moved against an edge of the multi-application environment. )
Independent Claim 13:
Claim 13 is substantially encompassed in claim 1, therefore, Examiner relies on the same rationale set forth in claim 1 to reject claim 13.
Independent Claim 14:
Vranjes teaches An immersive reality system comprising:
an immersive environment reproduction device; (e.g., tablet device; par. 7; FIG. 2 illustrates an example tablet computing device having a touch-sensitive display presenting an immersive interface.)
a user context receiver; (e.g., sensors par. 38; 36. FIG. 1 illustrates four example displays, which may be separate or integrated with computing device 102. Input mechanisms 142 may include gesture-sensitive sensors and devices, such as touch-based sensors and movement-tracking sensors (e.g., camera-based), as well as mice (free-standing or integral with a keyboard), a stylus, touch pads, accelerometers, and microphones with accompanying voice recognition software, to name a few. Input mechanisms 136 may be separate or integral with displays 134; integral examples include gesture-sensitive displays with integrated touch-sensitive or motion-sensitive sensors.)
and an immersive environment manager comprising a virtual workstation, the virtual workstation comprising a display window associated with a processing reproducing data, (e.g., managing application windows in a virtual immersive environment par. 42; Thus, in some cases multi-application environment module 118 presents a multi-application environment as an immersive environment par. 54; Alternately or additionally, multi-application environment 202 may be implemented as a desktop, virtual or otherwise, and include a control area, which is shown as application management UI 210 or a start menu (not shown).)
the immersive environment manager comprising a trigger for triggering a modification of the display window, the triggering of the modification of the display window triggering setting a parameter for reproducing the display window to a value that is determined as a function of a current user context prior related to a user capability in a real environment to the reproduction of the modified display window. (e.g., triggering by dragging an application window to a region of a workspace allows the window manager to identify when to set parameter for a size and/or position parameter of the application window. Examiner considers dragging input performed by a moving hand/arm to be related to user’s mobile capability in a real environment. Examiner notes that the dragging is prior to reproduction of the application window and that based on dragging input by a user is considered “a function current user context” such as declared input of a user interface as described by instant specification par. 85, par. 63; In the context of workspace 400, assume window 438 is being dragged into a corner region of workspace 400. Here, window manager 132 identifies an edge of application window 410, which is adjacent to the region into which application window 438 is moving. Par. 64; At 306, a size or a position is determined for the application window based on the edge of the other application window. The size or position of the application window may be determined such that the application window fills the region to the edge of the other application window. Par. 64; At 306, a size or a position is determined for the application window based on the edge of the other application window. The size or position of the application window may be determined such that the application window fills the region to the edge of the other application window. In some cases, the size or position is determined such that an edge of the application window aligns with a complimentary edge of an adjacent application window. In such cases, the application window and adjacent application window may have a same width or a same height. Par. 69; Placement of the application window may be responsive to input to add, switch, or move an application window in the multi-application environment. In some cases, the input is a gesture or edge trigger action in which an application window, or visual representation thereof, is dragged to or moved against an edge of the multi-application environment. )
Claim 15 depends on claim 14:
Vranjes teaches wherein the user context receiver is a device from among the following devices: a user interface of the immersive environment reproduction device; and a sensor. (e.g., sensors par. 38; 36. FIG. 1 illustrates four example displays, which may be separate or integrated with computing device 102. Input mechanisms 142 may include gesture-sensitive sensors and devices, such as touch-based sensors and movement-tracking sensors (e.g., camera-based), as well as mice (free-standing or integral with a keyboard), a stylus, touch pads, accelerometers, and microphones with accompanying voice recognition software, to name a few. Input mechanisms 136 may be separate or integral with displays 134; integral examples include gesture-sensitive displays with integrated touch-sensitive or motion-sensitive sensors.)
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vranjes as cited above, in view of Gorur et al. (hereinafter “Gorur”), U.S. Published Application No. 20190026936 A1.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1:
Vranjes fails to expressly teach wherein the current user context comprises a user constraint.
However, Gorur teaches wherein the current user context comprises a user constraint. (e.g., determining viewpoint or visibility constraints of a user par. 24; the extended reality computing system or the mobile device can determine a portion of the virtual environment (e.g., a “scene”) currently visible to the user through the HMD or augmented reality eyewear. Par. 28; a determined visibility of a face of each of the other users to the virtual assistant disposed at the particular candidate position par. 89; Based on the relationships shown in FIGS. 6B-6D, position determination module 170 determines c.sub.vis, a value indicative of visibility of a face of the user 601 to the candidate virtual assistant 604A disposed at the candidate position. Par. 95; In view of the determined lack of visibility, position determination module 170 can assign a value of 100 to c.sub.vis for user 601 and the candidate position associated with candidate virtual assistant 604A. par. 98; The computed placement scores may reflect structural and physical constraints imposed on the candidate positions by the augmented reality environment and, further, may reflect the visibility and proximity of the virtual assistant to each user within the augmented reality environment when the virtual assistant is placed at each of the candidate positions.)
In the same field of endeavor, namely determining desired placement of virtual objects for a user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of virtual objects as taught by Vranjes to be based on the visibility constraints of a user as taught by Gorur, to provide the benefit of improving the interaction between virtual objects and user (see Gorur, par. 2)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Prior Art Rejections
1)Applicant argues that even if Vranjes is interpreted to propose an application window adaptation of a virtual workspace, Vranjes does not describe or suggest the use of the described window adaptation in an immersive environment. (see Response; page 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that Applicant has failed to acknowledge the teachings of Vranjes that suggest the window adaption in an immersive environment. For example, par. 42 explicitly recites “Thus, in some cases multi-application environment module 118 presents a multi-application environment as an immersive environment”. Therefore, Vranjes does teach or suggest the use of the described window adaptation in an immersive environment.
2)Applicant argues that the gesture of the user's hand to perform the dragging input does not relate to a user's capability in a real environment. Therefore, Vranjes does not describe or suggest that the adaptation of the position and/or size of the application window is a function of a current user context in a real environment. (see Response; page 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s specification describes user’s capability as including mobility capability (see par. 78; Current user context is notably understood to mean one or more capabilities relating to the user: visual capability, mobility capability). Therefore, under Broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the recited “user’s capability” includes mobility of a user’s hand to perform a drag gesture. Therefore, the gesture of the user's hand to perform the dragging input as taught by Vranjes does relate to a user's capability (e.g., user’s mobility) in a real environment as recited in the claims.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims are not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HENRY ORR whose telephone number is (571)270-1308. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/HENRY ORR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights