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 . This action is made final.
Claims 1-3, 5-33 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 32, and 33 are independent claims. Claim 4 has been canceled.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: WEARABLE TERMINAL DEVICE, PROGRAM, AND DISPLAY METHOD FOR MANAGEMENT OF VIRTUAL IMAGES LOCATED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF A VISIBLE AREA.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 15-23, 25-27, and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2014/0375683 A1), in view of Yu (US 2009/0138819 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salter teaches a wearable terminal device configured to be used by being worn by a user (FIGS. 1-3 and [0017-0023]: head-mounted display device 104 including augmented reality display system 300; [0068]; For supplemental details see FIG. 10, [0056-0060], and [0063-0065]), the wearable terminal device comprising:
at least one processor (FIGS. 3 and 10 and [0059]: logic subsystem includes one or more processors; [0068]),
wherein the at least one processor
detects a visible area for the user inside a space ([0018]: “Display system 300 further comprises one or more outward-facing image sensors 306 configured to acquire images of a background scene and/or physical space being viewed by a user”; FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: See for example, a visible area/field of view 102 for the user inside a space.),
causes a display to display, out of virtual images located in the space, a first virtual image that is located inside the visible area (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: at T1, a first virtual image may be a marker displayed on object 502; FIGS. 2 and 3 and [0018]: first virtual image is displayed via see-through display subsystem 304. Specifically, the display may be one or more lenses 302), and
when a second virtual image located outside the visible area is present, causes the display to perform display indicating in a prescribed manner existence of the second virtual image (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: at T1, a second virtual image may be object 516 which is located outside the field of view. The existence of the second virtual image/object 516 is indicated by display of marker 516a within virtual map 506.),
wherein when the second virtual image located outside the visible area is present, the at least one processor causes the display to display a list screen containing a list including the second virtual image (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: at T1, second virtual image/marker 516 is outside the visible area and is present. The display displays a list screen/virtual map 506 containing a list including the second virtual image, as represented by marker 516a).
Salter does not explicitly teach wherein the list includes text representing the second virtual image.
Yu teaches wherein when the second virtual image located outside the visible area is present, the at least one processor causes the display to display a list screen containing a list including the second virtual image (FIGS. 4A-C and [0034-0036]: For example, in FIG. 4B, the second virtual image may be window b, which is hidden, or outside the visible area. Thus, a list screen/setting interface 300 is displayed with a list 302 including the second virtual image, or window b in this case); and
wherein the list includes text representing the second virtual image (FIGS. 4A-C and [0034-0036]: continuing the example of FIG. 4B, the list 302 includes text corresponding to the “window’s names”, including the window name for window b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the list screen containing a list of Salter by incorporating the teachings of Yu so as to include wherein the list includes text representing the second virtual image. Doing so would provide the user with more context in the list so that the user may more accurately identify the second virtual image. In this way, the user may visually navigate to the second virtual image within the list more effectively. Moreover, the user would be less likely to confuse representation for a second virtual image with other virtual images that may be less relevant, if at all.
Regarding claim 2, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter further teaches
wherein the display includes a display member that is transparent to light (see-through display subsystem 304, including lenses 302, of FIGS. 3 and 2 and [0018]), and
the at least one processor displays the first virtual image on a display surface of the display member with the first virtual image visible in the space that is visible through the display member (see-through display subsystem 304, including lenses 302, of FIGS. 3 and 2 and [0018]).
Regarding claim 3, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter further teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a camera configured to capture an image of the space (outward-facing image sensors 306 of FIGS. 2 and 3 and [0018]; See the example of the images captured in FIG. 5),
wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display an image of the space captured by the camera and the first virtual image superimposed on the image of the space (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035], FIGS. 2 and 3 and [0018]: first virtual image/marker on object 502 is superimposed on the image of the space).
Regarding claim 5, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter further teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1,
wherein when the second virtual image located outside the visible area is present, the at least one processor causes the display to display a list screen containing a list including the first virtual image and the second virtual image (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: at T1, second virtual image/marker 516 is outside the visible area and is present. The display displays a list screen/virtual map 506 containing a list including the first virtual image, as represented by marker 502a, and a second virtual image, as represented by marker 516a).
Regarding claim 6, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter further teaches
wherein a display position of the list screen on the display is fixed regardless of a position and an orientation of the user in the space (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: see how a display position of the list screen/virtual map 506 is fixed at T1 and T2 regardless of a position and an orientation of the user in the space).
Regarding claim 7, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter in view of Yu further teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1,
wherein in response to a prescribed operation performed on one virtual image included in the list screen, the at least one processor changes a display mode of the one virtual image (Salter, [0037] and [0039]: upon receipt of a user input to select or view the object/virtual image, a display mode of the virtual image changes. For example, a tendril appears for the virtual image) (Yu, supplementary mapping, FIG. 1 and [0027-0032], FIG. 2 and [0033]: in response to a prescribed operation, a user may switch the state of a window between a “display state” and a “hide state”; FIGS. 4A-C: for example, from FIG. 4B to FIG. 4C, the user performs a prescribed operation to change a display mode of window b from a hide state to a display state.).
Regarding claim 8, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter in view of Yu further teaches
wherein in response to a prescribed operation performed on the second virtual image, which is one of second virtual images included in the list screen, the at least one processor causes the display to perform display indicating a direction in which that second virtual image is located (Salter, [0037] and [0039]: upon receipt of a user input to select or view the object a virtual image, such as the second virtual image, a tendril appears for the second virtual image, the tendril indicating a direction in which that second virtual image is located) (Yu, supplementary mapping, FIG. 1 and [0027-0032], FIG. 2 and [0033]: in response to a prescribed operation, a user may switch the state of a window between a “display state” and a “hide state”; FIGS. 4A-C: for example, from FIG. 4B to FIG. 4C, the user performs a prescribed operation to change a display mode of window b from a hide state to a display state.).
Regarding claim 15, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display the second virtual image based on a first operation ([0021-0022], FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: see the transition from T1 to T2 based on a first operation, causing display of the second virtual image).
Regarding claim 16, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor displays the second virtual image at a position within a prescribed operation target range from a position of the user in the visible area (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: see display of the second virtual image at T2).
Regarding claim 17, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor changes a size of the second virtual image and causes the display to display the second virtual image (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: size of the second virtual image goes from zero at T1 to a size shown at T2).
Regarding claim 18, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor aligns the first virtual image and the second virtual image in a prescribed manner (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: see the alignment of the first virtual image and the second virtual image with respect to, for example, a horizontal axis).
Regarding claim 19, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches
wherein the virtual images each have a first surface and a second surface, and
the at least one processor causes the display to display each of the first virtual image and the second virtual image with one out of the first surface and the second surface facing the user ([0016] and [0028-0030] and FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: For each virtual image/marker, a first surface may be a portion of an area of a marker, while a second surface may be a partially or completely different portion of an area of a marker. At least one out of the first surface and the second surface faces the user as each marker, itself, faces the user).
Regarding claim 20, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor displays the first virtual image on the display in a mode according to a first rule, and displays the second virtual image on the display in a mode according to a second rule that is different from the first rule (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: at T2, the second virtual image is displayed in the field of view as opposed to the first virtual image which is no longer in the field of view).
Regarding claim 21, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches wherein the virtual images each have a first surface and a second surface, and
after displaying the second virtual image on the display, the at least one processor changes a surface of at least one of the virtual images that is displayed in accordance with a prescribed operation ([0016] and [0028-0030] and FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: For each virtual image/marker, a first surface may be a portion of an area of a marker, while a second surface may be a partially or completely different portion of an area of a marker. See how a surface of at least one virtual image is changed, as supported in [0028], which states “an appearance of a marker may vary based on changes in the object relative to the user, such as changes in distance from user and/or direction relative to user, etc.”. Thus, a prescribed operation such as user movement changes a surface, indicated by an appearance of a marker, of at least one of the virtual image.).
Regarding claim 22, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor aligns the first virtual image and the second virtual image in an order based on a prescribed condition (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: see the alignment of the first virtual image and the second virtual image with respect to, for example, a horizontal axis).
Regarding claim 23, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches
wherein the second virtual image includes a plurality of virtual images, and
when displaying the plurality of virtual images on the display, the at least one processor displays a scrolling screen on the display that can display any part of the plurality of virtual images in response to a scrolling operation (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: for example, the second virtual image include a plurality of virtual images like object 516 and object 504, as seen at T2. By changing the field of the view, such as from T1 to T2, the user can scroll through the virtual map, thus displaying any part of a plurality of virtual images).
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the wearable terminal device according to claim 15,
wherein the at least one processor causes the display to perform display in a prescribed highlighted manner with one out of the first virtual image and the second virtual image standing out more prominently than another one out of the first virtual image and the second virtual image (Salter, FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: at T2, the second virtual image is displayed in the field of view as opposed to the first virtual image which is no longer in the field of view. Thus, the second virtual image stands out more prominently).
Regarding claim 26, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter further teaches
wherein the second virtual image includes a plurality of virtual images, and
when a second operation is performed after the plurality of virtual images has been displayed on the display based on the first operation, the at least one processor returns at least one virtual image of the plurality of virtual images to its original position ([0021-0022] and FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: for example, the second virtual image include a plurality of virtual images like object 516 and object 504, as seen at T2. By changing the field of the view, such as that shown from T2 to T1, the user can scroll through the virtual map and revert to the same field of view as shown in T1, returning at least object 504 to its original position closer to the center and/or object 516 to its original position outside the field of view).
Regarding claim 27, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 26. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor moves the second virtual image to its original position along a path that passes in front of the user ([0021-0022] and FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: by changing the field of the view, via a second operation, the user can scroll through the virtual map and revert to the same field of view as shown in T1, returning the second virtual image to its original position outside the field of view. This path from right to left passes in front of the user).
Regarding claim 30, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor generates the virtual images located in one out of a first space and a second space, which is separate from the first space, (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: for example, a first space may be within the field of view 102 and a second space may be any portion of the space that does not include object with marker 516 within the field of view. See how space is represented by the virtual map 506. See for example at T1, virtual images that are generated in the second space, as represented by visual indicators or markers 518, 516a, 524, and 526 on virtual map 506) and
when the wearable terminal device is located in the first space, the at least one processor causes the display to perform display indicating existence of the second virtual image located in the second space (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: at T1, the wearable terminal device is located in the first space as supported by the center indicator or dot 510 which represents the center 512 of field of view 102. Further, at T1, existence of the second virtual image is indicated by marker 516a within virtual map 506).
Regarding claim 31, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 30. Salter further teaches
wherein the at least one processor causes the display to perform display indicating existence of the second virtual image located in the second space when the wearable terminal device is moved from the second space to the first space (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: the wearable terminal device may be initially occupied at a second space different from the first space as seen in T1. For example, the second space may be a space corresponding to the field of view 102 exemplified in T2. When the wearable terminal device is moved from the second space to the first space, the display performs display indicating existence of the second virtual image located in the second space via marker 516a within virtual map 506).
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Salter, FIG. 10 and [0061-0063]) configured to cause a computer provided in a wearable terminal device (FIGS. 1-3 and [0017-0023]: head-mounted display device 104 including augmented reality display system 300; [0068]) configured to be used by being worn by a user to execute operations corresponding to the wearable terminal device of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites a display method for use in a wearable terminal device configured to be used by being worn by a user (Salter, FIGS. 1-3 and [0017-0023]: head-mounted display device 104 including augmented reality display system 300; [0068]), the method comprising steps corresponding to the wearable terminal device of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 9-11 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2014/0375683 A1), in view of Yu (US 2009/0138819 A1), and in view of Nancke-Krogh et al. (US 2015/0067591 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter in view of Yu does not explicitly teach wherein in response to a prescribed copying operation performed on one virtual image contained in the list screen, the at least one processor copies the one virtual image and causes the display to display the copied one virtual image.
Nancke-Krogh teaches wherein in response to a prescribed copying operation performed on one virtual image contained in the list screen, the at least one processor copies the one virtual image and causes the display to display the copied one virtual image (FIGS. 20-21 and [0088-0089]: dragging operation and dropping operation are performed on one virtual image/live rendering of the Window (2022) included in the list screen/Navigation-Window (2001). This copies the one virtual image and causes display of the copied one virtual image at a position where the dropping operation is performed as seen in the Peephole-Window (2002) of FIG. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salter in view of Yu to incorporate the teachings of Nancke-Krogh so as to have wherein in response to a prescribed copying operation performed on one virtual image contained in the list screen, the at least one processor copies the one virtual image and causes the display to display the copied one virtual image. Doing so would allow the user convenient view and access to a virtual image without having to shift the field of view. This would help conserve processing resources since the field of view is minimally changed for display of a copy of the dragged and dropped virtual image included in the list screen. Furthermore, because changing the field of view is not required, unintentional removal of relevant content from display is prevented. Dragging and dropping operations also reduce the likelihood of unintentionally copying a virtual image, as opposed to simpler operations, thereby minimizing wasting of processing resources and display real estate.
Regarding claim 10, Salter in view of Yu and in view of Nancke-Krogh teaches the wearable device according to claim 9. Nancke-Krogh further teaches wherein the copying operation includes a dragging operation and a dropping operation performed on one virtual image included in the list screen, and
the at least one processor copies the one virtual image and causes the display to display the copied one virtual image at a position where the dropping operation is performed (FIGS. 20-21 and [0088-0089]: dragging operation and dropping operation are performed on one virtual image/live rendering of the Window (2022) included in the list screen/Navigation-Window (2001). This copies the one virtual image and causes display of the copied one virtual image at a position where the dropping operation is performed as seen in the Peephole-Window (2002) of FIG. 21; Same rationale provided in claim 9 rejection).
Regarding claim 11, Salter in view of Yu and in view of Nancke-Krogh teaches the wearable device according to claim 9. Nancke-Krogh further teaches wherein when the at least one processor accepts an editing operation for the copied one virtual image, the at least one processor reflects edited content resulting from the operation in the one virtual image that is an origin of copying (FIG. 24 and [0092]: “In an embodiment first user scroll Window (2003) that is a Linked-Window with a link to the same Source-Window as Window (2052), in this scenario second user's Window (2052) scrolls to the same position of the content as Window (2003).” The second user’s Window (2052) represents an origin of copying).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salter in view of Yu in view of Nancke-Krogh to incorporate the further teachings of Nancke-Krogh so as to have wherein when the at least one processor accepts an editing operation for the copied one virtual image, the at least one processor reflects edited content resulting from the operation in the one virtual image that is an origin of copying. Doing so would allow the user to not only conveniently view the copied virtual image but also efficiently edit the virtual image. In this way, the user does not have to directly access the original virtual image (i.e. by changing their field of view) to edit it, the direct access of the original virtual image potentially removing other relevant content from display. Instead, the user can conveniently access a copy of the virtual image via a list screen and edit the copy, the editing being reflected in the original virtual image.
Regarding claim 24, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 15. Salter in view of Yu does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display the second virtual image with the second virtual image overlapping at least a portion of the first virtual image.
Nancke-Krogh teaches wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display the second virtual image with the second virtual image overlapping at least a portion of the first virtual image (FIGS. 33-34 and [0101-0102]: second virtual image/window 2953 overlaps at least a portion of first virtual image/window 2952. While in this example a certain window overlaps another, the reverse may also be true as supported in [0102] since the user may choose to move any window from one view to another; For additional context of the virtual images see FIGS. 29-32 and [0097-0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salter in view of Yu to incorporate the teachings of Nancke-Krogh so as to have wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display the second virtual image with the second virtual image overlapping at least a portion of the first virtual image. Doing so would conserve display real estate as the second virtual image may partially overlap a first virtual image in such a way that relevant information in the first viewable image is still viewable to the user. In this way, clutter in the user interface may be reduced and the user may more easily focus on relevant content.
Claims 12, 13, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2014/0375683 A1), in view of Yu (US 2009/0138819 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Although Salter teaches one virtual image included in the list screen (FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: for example, at T1, see a list screen/virtual map 506 containing a list including one virtual image such as marker 502a), Salter does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor, in response to a prescribed moving operation performed on one virtual image included in the list screen, moves the one virtual image to a position in accordance with the moving operation.
In another embodiment, Salter teaches wherein the at least one processor, in response to a prescribed moving operation performed on one virtual image (FIG. 7 and [0041-0042]; [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salter in view of Yu to incorporate the teachings of Salter from another embodiment so as to have wherein the at least one processor, in response to a prescribed moving operation performed on one virtual image included in the list screen, moves the one virtual image to a position in accordance with the moving operation. Doing so would allow the user to reduce clutter in the user’s field of view by moving away a virtual image that may not be relevant. In this way, the user can better focus on objects in the field of view that are more critical. Moreover, a prescribed moving operation such as dragging and dropping operations help reduce the likelihood of unintentionally moving a virtual image, as opposed to simpler operations, thereby minimizing wasting of processing resources.
Regarding claim 13, Salter in view of Yu further teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 12,
wherein the moving operation includes a dragging operation and a dropping operation performed on one virtual image included in the list screen, and
the at least one processor moves the one virtual image on which the dropping operation is performed (Salter, FIG. 7 and [0041-0042]; Same rationale provided in claim 12 rejection).
Regarding claim 28, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 26. Although Salter further teaches the second virtual image that has been returned to its original position ([0021-0022] and FIG. 5 and [0031-0035]: by changing the field of the view, via a second operation, the user can scroll through the virtual map and revert to the same field of view as shown in T1, returning the second virtual image to its original position outside the field of view), Salter does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display a line linking the second virtual image that has been returned to its original position to a prescribed position in the visible area.
In another embodiment, Salter teaches wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display a line linking the second virtual image that has been returned to its original position to a prescribed position in the visible area (FIG. 6 and [0036-0039]: see visual indicator 604 for virtual image/object 606 which is outside the field of view at T1. As supported in [0037], “Such tendrils may be displayed persistently for out-of-view objects”. The visual indicator 604 is a line which links the virtual image to a prescribed position, as indicated by the position occupied by visual indicator 604, in the visible area/field of view 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salter in view of Yu to incorporate the teachings of Salter from another embodiment so as to have wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display a line linking the second virtual image that has been returned to its original position to a prescribed position in the visible area. Doing so would allow the user to reduce clutter in the user’s field of view by moving away a virtual image that may not be relevant. In this way, the user can better focus on objects in the field of view that are more critical. Furthermore, displaying a linking line allows the user to more easily remember the location of the virtual object, even when out of the user’s field of view, for more convenient access.
Regarding claim 29, Salter in view of Yu further teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 28, wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display the second virtual image to which the line is linked in response to a prescribed operation performed on the line (Salter, FIG. 6 and [0036-0039]: as supported in [0037], “A tendril may be used in any suitable context to lead a user's gaze to a object located outside of a current augmented reality field of view. The tendril acts as a line that leads from within the field of view toward the object outside the field of view. Thus, a user may visually follow the tendril to find the object to which the tendril leads.” See from T1 to T2 as a result of the prescribed operation of the user visually following the line to display object 606; See the rationale provided in claim 28 rejection).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2014/0375683 A1), in view of Yu (US 2009/0138819 A1), and in view of Wheeler et al. (US 9547406 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Salter in view of Yu teaches the wearable terminal device according to claim 1. Salter in view of Yu does not explicitly teach wherein, in response to a deletion operation including an operation of selecting one or two or more virtual images included in the list screen, the at least one processor deletes, from the space, a selected virtual image or a not selected virtual image among virtual images included in the list screen.
Wheeler teaches wherein, in response to a deletion operation including an operation of selecting one or two or more virtual images included in the list screen, the at least one processor deletes, from the space, a selected virtual image or a not selected virtual image among virtual images included in the list screen (FIG. 5D and Col. 14, line 56 to Col. 15, line 25: a deletion operation includes selecting, for example, a virtual image included in the list screen/menu 504 to delete the selected virtual image, such as selected menu object 510, from the space.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salter in view of Yu to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler from another embodiment so as to have wherein, in response to a deletion operation including an operation of selecting one or two or more virtual images included in the list screen, the at least one processor deletes, from the space, a selected virtual image or a not selected virtual image among virtual images included in the list screen. Doing so would allow the user to reduce clutter in the space and/or the display so that the user may more efficiently focus on more relevant content.
Response to Arguments
The amendment of the title of the invention remains not descriptive. Applicant may consider the suggestion provided above or amend the title.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 1, 32, and 33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Salter as anticipating the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 2010/0100842 A1: displaying a list of hidden popup windows
US 9715332 B1: sub-menu including visible and invisible app visual components
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 KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 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 D 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 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights