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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2024 being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 3/18/2024 are accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘307) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11934613 (hereinafter ‘613). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to claim 1 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘307 is broader than claim 1 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 2 of ‘307, claim 2 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 2 of ‘307 since claim 2 of ‘307 is broader than claim 2 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 3 of ‘307 since claim 3 of ‘307 is broader than claim 1 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 4 of ‘307 since claim 4 of ‘307 is broader than claim 1 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘307, claim 5 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 5 of ‘307 since claim 5 of ‘307 is broader than claim 5 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘307, claim 6 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 6 of ‘307 since claim 6 of ‘307 is broader than claim 6 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 7 of ‘307, claim 7 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 7 of ‘307 since claim 7 of ‘307 is broader than claim 7 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 8 of ‘307, claim 8 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 8 of ‘307 since claim 8 of ‘307 is broader than claim 8 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘307, claim 9 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 9 of ‘307 since claim 9 of ‘307 is broader than claim 9 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘307, claim 10 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 10 of ‘307 since claim 10 of ‘307 is broader than claim 10 of ‘613.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 since claim 11 of ‘307 is broader than claim 1 of ‘613, with the exception of the processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory. Yet a processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory are well known in the art, and the examiner takes official notice of the fact. It would have been obvious to have modified the banking machine and processing steps of claim 1 of ‘613 to have been specifically a machine that includes the processing circuit with non-transitory memory, as known in the art. The combination would have allowed claim 1 of ‘613 to have been implemented a way to consistently (through memory persistency) apply steps/actions in an automated manner.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 12 of ‘307 and claim 2 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 12 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 13 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 13 of ‘307 and claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 13 of ‘307
With regards to claim 14 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 14 of ‘307 and claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 14 of ‘307
With regards to claim 15 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 15 of ‘307 and claim 5 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 15 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 16 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 16 of ‘307 and claim 6 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 16 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 17 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 17 of ‘307 and claim 7 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 17 of ‘307
With regards to claim 18 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 18 of ‘307 and claim 8 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 18 of ‘307
With regards to claim 19 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 19 of ‘307 and claim 9 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 19 of ‘307
With regards to claim 20 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 20 of ‘307 since claim 20 of ‘307 is broader than claim 1 of ‘613, with the exception of the one or more processors and a non-transitory memory. Yet one or more processors coupled executing instructions from a non-transitory memory are well known in the art, and the examiner takes official notice of the fact. It would have been obvious to have modified the banking machine and processing steps of claim 1 of ‘613 to have been specifically a machine that includes one or more processors that execute instructions from non-transitory memory, as known in the art. The combination would have allowed claim 1 of ‘613 to have been implemented a way to consistently (through memory persistency) apply steps/actions in an automated manner.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘307) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11188218 (hereinafter ‘218). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to claim 1 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘218 is broader than claim 1 of ‘307. .
With regards to claim 2 of ‘307, claim 2 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 2 of ‘307 since claim 2 of ‘218 is broader than claim 2 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 3 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘218 is broader than claim 3 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 4 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘218 is broader than claim 4 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘307, claim 6 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 5 of ‘307 since claim 6 of ‘218 is broader than claim 5 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘307, claim 7 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 6 of ‘307 since claim 7 of ‘218 is broader than claim 6 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 7 of ‘307, claim 8 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 7 of ‘307 since claim 8 of ‘218 is broader than claim 7 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 8 of ‘307, claim 9 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 8 of ‘307 since claim 9 of ‘218 is broader than claim 8 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘307, claim 11 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 9 of ‘307 since claim 11 of ‘218 is broader than claim 9 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘307, claim 14 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 10 of ‘307 since claim 14 of ‘218 is broader than claim 10 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘218 is broader than claim 11 of ‘307, with the exception of the processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory. Yet a processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory are well known in the art, and the examiner takes official notice of the fact. It would have been obvious to have modified the banking machine and processing steps of claim 1 of ‘218 to have been specifically a machine that includes the processing circuit with non-transitory memory, as known in the art. The combination would have allowed claim 1 of ‘218 to have been implemented a way to consistently (through memory persistency) apply steps/actions in an automated manner.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 12 of ‘307 and claim 2 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 12 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 13 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 13 of ‘307 and claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 13 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 14 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 14 of ‘307 and claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 14 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 15 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 15 of ‘307 and claim 6 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 15 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 16 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 16 of ‘307 and claim 7 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 16 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 17 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 17 of ‘307 and claim 8 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 17 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 18 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 18 of ‘307 and claim 9 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 18 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 19 of ‘307, the combination in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above teaches the limitations of claim 19 of ‘307 and claim 11 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 19 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 20 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 20 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘218 is broader than claim 20 of ‘307, with the exception of the one or more processors and a non-transitory memory. Yet one or more processors coupled executing instructions from a non-transitory memory are well known in the art, and the examiner takes official notice of the fact. It would have been obvious to have modified the banking machine and processing steps of claim 1 of ‘218 to have been specifically a machine that includes one or more processors that execute instructions from non-transitory memory, as known in the art. The combination would have allowed claim 1 of ‘218 to have been implemented a way to consistently (through memory persistency) apply steps/actions in an automated manner.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘307) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10146423 (hereinafter ‘423) in view of Roh et al (US Patent: 9230386, issued: Jan .6, 2016, filed: Nov. 3, 2008) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to claim 1 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘423 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 except teaches “… determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display …”.
However Roh et al teaches “… determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display …” (column 9, lines 41-54: when it is determined that a portion of a presented menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display (not enough space to display on the left of the display unit), the menu is then repositioned and/or rearranged/reshaped in different ways to present the menu)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified claim 1 of ‘423’s ability to adjust positioning of a presented menu options based upon user associated context metadata, such that the adjustment of menu positioning would also further be based on determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside a boundary of a display, as taught by Roh et al. The combination would have implemented a more convenient and intuitive user interface which can display information according to characteristics of the user (Roh et al, column 1, lines 15-24 and lines 49-51).
With regards to claim 2 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu and claim 2 of ‘423 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 2 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 1 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 3 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 6 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 4 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 6 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 5 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 7 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 6 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 11 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 9 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting … the menu …, and claim 1 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 10 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘307, it is rejected under similar rationale as the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above, with the exception that claim 1 of ‘423 does not explicitly recite the processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory. Yet a processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory are well known in the art, and the examiner takes official notice of the fact. It would have been obvious to have modified the banking machine and processing steps of claim 1 of ‘423 to have been specifically a machine that includes the processing circuit with non-transitory memory, as known in the art. The combination would have allowed claim 1 of ‘423 to have been implemented a way to consistently (through memory persistency) apply steps/actions in an automated manner.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘307, claim 11 of ‘307 explained that the combination claim 11 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu and claim 2 of ‘423 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 12 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘307, claim 11 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 1 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 13 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘307, claim 11 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 6 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 14 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘307, claim 11 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 6 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 15 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘307, claim 11 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 7 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 16 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘307, claim 11 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position of the menu, and claim 11 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 19 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 20 of ‘307, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 11 of ‘307 above.
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘307) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10146423 (hereinafter ‘423) in view of Roh et al (US Patent: 9230386, issued: Jan .6, 2016, filed: Nov. 3, 2008) in view of Brown et al (US Application: US 20030128234, published: Jul. 10, 2003, filed: Jan. 9, 2002). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to claim 7 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al teaches adjusting the position, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach adjusting a position of advertising content Yet Brown et al teaches teach adjusting a position of advertising content (paragraph 0071: based on interface adjustments/arrangements of content being displayed , advertising content can be relocated to a space not occupied even after the adjustments/arrangement of displayed content through allocation of a whitespace region for the advertisement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 and Roh et al’s ability to adjust menu content based on a plurality of touch inputs, such that the adjusted content being displayed would still adjust a position for an allocated white space used for displaying an advertisement, as taught by Brown et al. The combination would have implemented an improved way to ensure that designated content can be persistently displayed (Brown et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 8 of ‘307 , it is rejected under similar rationale explained for the rejection of claim 7 of ‘307 (as the remaining limitations of claim 8 of ‘307 are addressed in the prior art combination applied in claim 7 of ‘307).
With regards to claim 17 of ‘307, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 of ‘307 above.
With regards to claim 18 of ‘307 of ‘307, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 of ‘307 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-13 and 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotani et al (US Application: US 2011/0164063, published: Jul. 7, 2011, filed: Mar. 8, 2011), in view of Roh et al (US Patent: 9230386, issued: Jan .6, 2016, filed: Nov. 3, 2008) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000).
With regards to claim 1, Shimotani et al teaches a method (Fig. 1, Fig. 14: a computer system using a processing and memory is implemented to perform /executed steps of a method) comprising:
generating a graphical user interface for presentation to a user at … machine having a touch screen display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a menu presented at an initial location (Fig. 4: menu icons displayed at a default/initial position);
receiving a plurality of user touch inputs including a first touch input and a second touch input on the touch screen display (Fig. 4: the user can apply a plurality of touches/selections on the touch panel (ST410));
determining a third point based on the first touch input and the second touch input; determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary … if the position of the menu is displayed at the third point (Fig. 4: The repositioning algorithm supports multiple user touches on one of the icons through multiple iterations from ST401-ST411 when user makes a touch and then makes another one or more subsequent finger positional movements and/or touches. Additionally, as explained in Fig. 4, paragraph 0006: a portion of a menu is considered outside of a desired safe/acceptable range of operability when a distance between a position of a finger and position of a menu icon is equal or longer than a predetermined distance (the distance/radial-position of menu icon being interpreted as a third point); and
adjusting, based on determining that the portion of the menu would be positioned outside of the boundary, the position of the menu to a new menu position such that no part of the menu is positioned outside the boundary of the touch screen display (Fig. 4, Fig. 6: the portion of the menu having the menu icon being greater or equal than the predetermined distance (outside an acceptable boundary) is then adjusted such that it is positioned within an acceptable boundary/distance) and can be shifted in a horizontal and/or vertical manner to the finger).
However Shimotani et al does not expressly teach … for presentation to a user at an automated banking machine … ; determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display …
Yet Roh et al teaches determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display … (column 9, lines 41-54: when it is determined that a portion of a presented menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display (not enough space to display on the left of the display unit), the menu is then repositioned and/or rearranged/reshaped in different ways to present the menu)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Shimotani et al’s ability to adjust positioning of a presented menu options based upon user associated context metadata, such that the adjustment of menu positioning would also further be based on determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside a boundary of a display, as taught by Roh et al. The combination would have allowed Shimotani et al to have implemented a more convenient and intuitive user interface which can display information according to characteristics of the user (Roh et al, column 1, lines 15-24 and lines 49-51).
However, although the combination teaches adjusting position of presented content based upon user associated context, the combination does not expressly teach … … for presentation to a user at an automated banking machine …
Yet McNaughton teaches … for presentation to a user at an automated banking machine … (column 1, lines 41-56, column 3, lines 13-37, column 4, lines 1-18, column 5, lines 10-19: a machine’s terminal display can be adjusted by taking into account user associated context metadata such as location of user’s head (known in the art to include a face with eyes) and user’s sensed height. It is also noted that McNaughton acknowledges, the user’s location/height is influenced by other factors such as type of vehicle the user is sitting in (whether car or wheelchair)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Shimotani et al and Roh et al’s ability to adjust positioning of presented menu content on a device based on user associated context metadata, such that the device could have been a touch screen automated banking machine and the user associated context meta would have further included additional user context (location of user’s head (which as known in the art includes a face) and height of user, as taught by McNaughton. The combination would have allowed implemented a way to have made a self service terminal (ATM) more readily accessible based upon user stature or when users are seated in different vehicles (McNaughton, column 1, lines 50-56).
With regards to claim 2. The method of claim 1, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu comprises at least one of adjusting a horizontal position of the menu or adjusting a vertical position of the menu (as similarly explained by Shimotani et al in the rejection of claim 1, Fig 6 shows the menu item can be adjusted in a horizontal and/or vertical manner), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 3. The method of claim 1, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu to the new menu position is based on determining a location of a face of the user with respect to the touch screen display (as similarly explained in the combination of claim 1, the combination Shimotani et al and Roh et al’s ability to adjust position of menu items/content based upon identified context was modified to include the context of a location of a head (face) of the user), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 6. The method of claim 1, Shimotani et al teaches further comprising: determining that the user has not touched the touch screen display within a predetermined period of time; and readjusting, based on determining that the user has not touched the touch screen display within the predetermined period of time, a position of the menu on the touch screen display to a default position (Fig. 4, paragraph 0075: when the user has not touched the display within a period of time, positioning of menu item(s) are moved back to a default position(s)).
With regards to claim 9. The method of claim 1, Shimotani et al teaches further comprising readjusting the position of the menu to a default position after a condition occurs (Fig. 4, paragraph 0075: when the user has not touched the display within a period of time (an elapsed idle type condition occurring), positioning of menu item(s) are moved back to a default position(s)).
With regards to claim 10. The method of claim 1, Shimotani et al teaches further comprising adjusting the shape of a menu option of the menu based on at least one of the first touch input, the second touch input, or the new menu position (as similarly explained and taught by Shimotani et al in the rejection of claim 1, a menu can be reshaped if there is a determination that it will not fit within the display), and is rejected under similar rationale..
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches a system comprising: an automated banking machine having a touch screen display; and a processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, the processing circuit configured to: generate a graphical user interface for presentation to a user at the automated banking machine having the touch screen display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a menu presented at an initial location; receive a plurality of user touch inputs including a first touch input and a second touch input on the touch screen display; determine a third point based on the first touch input and the second touch input; determine that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display if the position of the menu is displayed at the third point; and adjust, based on determining that the portion of the menu would be positioned outside of the boundary, the position of the menu to a new menu position such that no part of the menu is positioned outside the boundary of the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The system of claim 11, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to adjust the position of the menu by at least one of adjusting a horizontal position of the menu or adjusting a vertical position of the menu, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The system of claim 11, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to adjust the position of the menu to the new menu position based on determining a location of a face of the user with respect to the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The system of claim 11, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: determine that the user has not touched the touch screen display within a predetermined period of time; and readjusting, based on determining that the user has not touched the touch screen display within the predetermined period of time, a position of the menu on the touch screen display to a default position, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. The system of claim 11, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches where the processing circuit is further configured to readjust the position of the menu to a default position after a condition occurs, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20 the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing circuit, cause the processing circuit to: generate a graphical user interface for presentation to a user at an automated banking machine having a touch screen display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a menu presented at an initial location; receive a plurality of user touch inputs including a first touch input and a second touch input on the touch screen display; determine a third point based on the first touch input and the second touch input; determine that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display if the position of the menu is displayed at the third point; and adjust, based on determining that the position of the menu would be positioned outside of the boundary, the position of the menu to a new menu position such that no part of the menu is positioned outside the boundary of the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotani et al (US Application: US 2011/0164063, published: Jul. 7, 2011, filed: Mar. 8, 2011), in view of Roh et al (US Patent: 9230386, issued: Jan .6, 2016, filed: Nov. 3, 2008) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000) in view of Kit (US Patent: 7035822, issued: Apr. 25, 2006, filed: May 17, 2000).
With regards to claim 4. The method of claim 1, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu to the new menu position is based on determining a location … of the user with respect to the touch screen display (as similarly explained in the combination of claim 1, the combination Shimotani et al and Roh et al’s ability to adjust position of menu items/content based upon identified context was modified to include the context of a user’s location and height (which can be influenced by characteristics of a vehicle the person is using), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach determining a location of a vehicle of the user …
Yet Kit teaches determining a location of a vehicle of the user … (column 4, lines 4-10, 36-43: based on vehicle detected in a relevant location, height of vehicle is also determined to make user interface adjustments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton’s ability to adjust menu content positioning based upon determining and assessing user associated metadata (such as location and height associated with the user (which could be impacted due to the user riding in/on a vehicle), such that the user associated metadata for a vehicle would include determining location and height of the vehicle, as taught by Kit. The combination would have reduced user difficulty when interacting with an ATM interface.
With regards to claim 5. The method of claim 4, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al, McNaughton, and Kit teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu to the new menu position is based on determining a height of the vehicle, as similarly explained in the combination of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The system of claim 11, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al, McNaughton, and Kit teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu to the new menu position is based on determining a location of a vehicle of the user with respect to the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The system of claim 14, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al, McNaughton, and Kit teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu to the new menu position is based on determining a height of the vehicle, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotani et al (US Application: US 2011/0164063, published: Jul. 7, 2011, filed: Mar. 8, 2011), in view of Roh et al (US Patent: 9230386, issued: Jan .6, 2016, filed: Nov. 3, 2008) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000) in view of Brown et al (US Application: US 20030128234, published: Jul. 10, 2003, filed: Jan. 9, 2002).
With regards to claim 7. The method of claim 1, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton teaches further comprising adjusting a position of … content on the touch screen display based on the plurality of user touch inputs, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach adjusting a position of advertising content.
Yet Brown et al teaches teach adjusting a position of advertising content (paragraph 0071: based on interface adjustments/arrangements of content being displayed , advertising content can be relocated to a space not occupied even after the adjustments/arrangement of displayed content through allocation of a whitespace region for the advertisement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Shimotani et al, Roh et al and McNaughton’s ability to adjust menu content based on a plurality of touch inputs, such that the adjusted content being displayed would still adjust a position for an allocated white space used for displaying an advertisement, as taught by Brown et al. The combination would have implemented an improved way to ensure that designated content can be persistently displayed (Brown et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 8. The method of claim 7, the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al, McNaughton and Brown et al teaches wherein adjusting the position of the advertising content comprises positioning the advertising content in a portion of the touch screen display not occupied by the menu, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The system of claim 11, , the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al, McNaughton and Brown et al teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to adjust a position of advertising content on the touch screen display based on the plurality of user touch inputs, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The system of claim 17, , the combination of Shimotani et al, Roh et al, McNaughton and Brown et al teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to adjust the position of the advertising content by positioning the advertising content in a portion of the touch screen display not occupied by the menu, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vassigh et al (US Application: US 20110193939: This reference teaches analyzing interaction zones for gesture based user interfaces.
Mita (US Application: US 2008/0192024): This reference teaches identifying and repositioning a menu based upon user gesture activity.
Andrews (US Application: US 20060158425): This reference teaches screen calibration to adapt to repositioning a display to account for size and reach of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172