DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the filing of 6/10/26. Claims 1-19 are pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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, 9-11, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasankar (20230315242) in view of Turner (2020/0356230.)
Claim 1, 15, 16: Rajasankar discloses a method, comprising:
receiving (Fig. 1: layout component 116 / overlay component 120), from an application (Fig. 1: 102 browser) associated with a set of one or more spatial bounds (Fig. 5: 504(1) (2) (3) (N); par. 69, layout positions 504(1-N) of the existing UI elements; par. 61, the browser 102 computes boundaries that enclose a display screen area corresponding to the visible part of the image 406) within an environment (Fig. 5: 410 rectangle), a request to place a user interface (UI) object (par. 63, the browser-added UI element can be intelligently placed) at a location outside (par. 63, to avoid interfering with the existing UI elements; par. 69, avoids overlapping the identified layout positions 504(1-N) of the existing UI elements) of the set of one or more spatial bounds; and
in response (Fig. 9: 908-912) to receiving the request to place the UI object at the location that is outside of the set of one or more spatial bounds and in accordance with a determination that the UI object has
a first property (par. 69, this image function object has a preferred position (e.g., upper right corner 604 of the visible part of the image 406)) and
that the location satisfies a set of one or more distance criteria (par. 70, the UI element is placed far from the center in the upper right direction. The flow directions are used for consistent placement of the browser-added UI element 106 across images on different websites. In the example where the preferred position is the upper right corner 604, the x-axis flow direction is right to left 606 and the y-axis flow direction 608 is top to bottom. The browser is configured to sort the existing UI elements in the flow directions and identify the first, or best, position 610 where the browser-added UI element 106 fits; Fig. 8: making certain that the UI element is displayed at such a distance from the corner so as to not be obscured by rounded corners),
placing the UI object within the environment and outside of the one or more spatial bounds (Fig. 6: 610, UI object is placed in the best position, and outside the other UI element bounds, e.g. not overlapping.)
However, Rajasankar does not explicitly disclose: at a system process:
wherein the system process is separate from the application.
Turner discloses a similar method for moving objects from / to an application, including: at a system process: wherein the system process is separate from the application (par. 25, 40; The drag and drop architecture 200 includes a drag and drop manager 210 which is configured to manage a drag session corresponding to a drag event between an application 230 and an application 240. Multiple drag sessions are supported by the drag and drop architecture 200. In particular, the drag and drop manager 210 is configured to manage a separate drag session corresponding to a drag event between two respective applications (e.g., an application 235 and an application 245) and/or within a same application that supports multiple windows.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rajasankar and Turner so as to make sure that the application is authorized to make the requested adjustments / moving of the objects (par. 40, Turner.)
Claim 3: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: while the UI object is displayed in the environment, receiving an indication of an interaction corresponding to a respective location that is outside of the one or more spatial bounds; and in response to receiving the interaction and in accordance with a determination that the respective location corresponds to a location of the UI object, sending, to the application, an indication of the interaction (Rajasankar Fig. 2: 202, par. 54, the browser 102 can implement, or initiate, the image-based search function based on an interaction 202 (e.g., a hover, a selection) between the user-controlled pointer element and the browser-added UI element 106. Based on the interaction 202, the browser 102 can call on an image search engine 204, e.g., over network(s) 206, to use characteristics of the image 108 (e.g., graphical characteristics, text descriptions in the image metadata, captions) to provide links to other websites that may contain images that are the same or similar to the image 108; Fig. 10:1002.)
Claim 4: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the request to place the UI object is received by a system process of a computer system (Rajasankar Fig. 11, computer architecture diagram showing an illustrative computer hardware and software architecture for a computing device that can implement the various technologies presented herein.)
Claim 5: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the UI object includes a plurality of controls, and wherein a respective control of the plurality of controls is configured to, when selected, cause one or more computer systems to perform an operation with respect to the application (Rajasankar Fig. 2: 202, 208, par. 53, The browser-added UI element 106 can be associated with a function 122 that is implemented, or at least initiated, by the browser 102; par. 54, In one example, the function 122 is an image-based search function.)
Claim 6: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the UI object includes one or more characteristics, and wherein placing the UI object includes, in accordance with a determination that the one or more characteristics are not specified by the request to place the UI object, applying one or more default characteristics to the UI object (Rajasankar par. 22, best fit placement policy attempts to achieve consistent placement for the browser-added element; par. 23, the best fit placement policy can define flow directions for both an x-axis (e.g., right to left, left to right) and a y-axis.)
Claim 9: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the request to place the UI object includes a specified location for the UI object (Rajasankar Fig. 9: 910; par. 85, a first layout position of an image that is to be displayed on the webpage.)
Claim 10: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the UI object is displayed: in accordance with a determination that the specified location satisfies the set of one or more distance criteria, at the specified location (Rajasankar Fig. 9: 910; par. 85, a first layout position of an image that is to be displayed on the webpage); and in accordance with a determination that the specified location does not satisfy the set of one or more distance criteria, at a second location different from the specified location (Rajasankar Fig. 9: 912, par. 85, the browser applies a placement policy to identify a third layout position for a browser-added user interface element to be displayed on the webpage.)
Claim 11: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the UI object corresponds to a view of the application, and wherein the UI object ceases to be displayed in conjunction with the view ceasing to be displayed (Rajasankar Fig. 1: shows the window’s icon ‘X’ for closing the webpage. As the UI object is displayed as part of the webpage, closing the webpage, would make the UI cease being displayed.)
Claim 13: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the UI object changes from a third visual appearance to a fourth visual appearance different from the third visual appearance in conjunction with a user interface element corresponding to a system process being displayed (Rajasankar Fig. 2: changing to a selected object 202, in response to Search UI 208 being displayed.)
Claim 14: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: after placing the UI object in the environment, receiving a request to move the set of one or more spatial bounds within the environment; and in response to receiving the request to move the set of one or more spatial bounds within the environment, causing the UI object to move from a first location to a second location within the environment, wherein the second location is different from the first location (Rajasankar Fig. 9: 904-912; par. 85, the browser applies a placement policy to identify a third layout position for a browser-added user interface element to be displayed on the webpage.)
Claim 17: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more spatial bounds is a boundary of the application (Rajasankar Fig. 5: boundary of the area 410 minus the areas occupied by the elements 504(1)-(3).)
Claim 18: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the boundary is an area within which the application is permitted to place UI objects without restriction (Rajasankar Fig. 5: boundary of the area 410 minus the areas occupied by the elements 504(1)-(3).)
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasankar in view of Turner and Mindlin (2023/0031439.)
Claim 2: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving the request to place the UI object at the location that is outside of the set of one or more spatial bounds and; However, Rajasankar does not explicitly disclose:
in accordance with a determination that the UI object has a second property different from the first property, forgoing placing the UI object within the environment and outside of the one or more spatial bounds.
Mindlin discloses a similar method for placement of objects beyond boundaries, including: in accordance with a determination that the UI object has a second property different from the first property, forgoing placing the UI object within the environment and outside of the one or more spatial bounds (Fig. 8B: 314-2; 806; par. 92, disallow passage of avatar 314-2 through sound boundary 802-B or otherwise impose a restriction on the second user with regard to moving avatar 314-2 through sound boundary 802-B.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rajasankar and Mindlin so as to restrict movement of objects based on permissions for security reasons.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasankar in view of Turner and Zhang (2022/0043960.)
Claim 7: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1. However, Rajasankar does not explicitly disclose wherein the request to place the UI object includes a size for the UI object.
Zhang discloses a similar method for placement of objects, including: wherein the request to place the UI object includes a size for the UI object (Fig. 6A: 502b Visualization has an initial size (that overlaps.) Par. 45, When positioning the objects in the canvas 501, the system will automatically correct placement issues. For example, if the user adds an object to a position that overlaps or partially overlaps an existing object, the system will automatically resize the new object to fit within an open space in the canvas.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rajasankar and Zhang so as to not only rely upon layout flow modifications to fit an object at desired position, but to also be able to make minor size adjustments to the object too.
Claim 8: Rajasankar and Zhang disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the UI object is displayed: in accordance with a determination that the size satisfies a first set of one or more size criteria, in the size; and in accordance with a determination that the size does not satisfy the first set of one or more size criteria, in a second size different from the size (Zhang Fig. 6A: 502b Visualization has an initial size (that overlaps.) Par. 45, When positioning the objects in the canvas 501, the system will automatically correct placement issues. For example, if the user adds an object to a position that overlaps or partially overlaps an existing object, the system will automatically resize the new object to fit within an open space in the canvas.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasankar in view of Turner and Ording (2007/0022389.)
Claim 12: Rajasankar and Turner disclose the method of claim 1. However, Rajasankar does not explicitly disclose wherein the UI object changes from a first visual appearance to a second visual appearance different from the first visual appearance in conjunction with the application becoming a background process.
Ording discloses a similar method for managing windows and elements on a desktop, including:
wherein the UI object changes from a first visual appearance to a second visual appearance different from the first visual appearance in conjunction with the application becoming a background process (par. 27, The window manager is responsive to the action of the cursor control device 26 to cause the displays of the active and non-active windows to be changed accordingly, for example by dimming features of non-active windows or removing color from their components.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rajasankar and Ording to highlight active windows and their objects while dimming the background windows and their objects so as to make it emphasis active windows for the user.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasankar in view of Turner and Hudson (2024/0256722.)
Claim 19: Rajasankar and Turner disclose method of claim 1. However, Rajasankar does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of one or more distance criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the location is a threshold distance away from the set of one or more spatial bounds.
Hudson discloses a similar method for object placement, including: wherein the set of one or more distance criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the location is a threshold distance away from the set of one or more spatial bounds (Claim 1, determining that placement of the first object at the location does not violate the set of predefined rules and permitting the placement of the first object, wherein the location is within a threshold distance of a second object but does not contact the second object such that a gap initially exists between the first object and the second object.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rajasankar and Hudson based on a suggestion in Rajasankar for placement of element 610 a certain distance away from the spatial bounds (Fig. 5-6, element 504(3) and the right side of the rectangle 410.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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: Besecker (2023/0343048) placement of objects in augmented
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY BELOUSOV whose telephone number is (571) 270-1695 and Andrew.belousov@uspto.gov email. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Andrey Belousov/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2172
6/25/26
Prosecution Insights