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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 98-99 have been cancelled. Claims 91-97, and 100-170 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the objections noted in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Claims 91, 107, 129, and 130 were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) based on reciting "display generation component." Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
The claim limitation of "display generation component" recites sufficient structure to
perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification wound understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function. MPEP 2181 states that even when a term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks") 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) will not apply so long as the term has sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function. Notably, many devices take their names from the functions they perform.1 In the instant case, persons of ordinary skill in the art would understand "display generation component" to have definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. The claims do not recite a “display” as would seem to be appropriate for the argument above regarding terms such as “brakes” or “screwdriver”. The Examiner agrees that an amendment to recite “display” instead of “display generation component” would direct the claim to a class of structures identified by their functions, akin to “brakes”. However, a “display generation component” is not a recognized term for such a class of structures, neither, for example would be a “braking generation component”. The term “display generation component” does not appear to recite any structure at all and is not a recognized term of art which corresponds to a class of structures. Accordingly, interpretation under 112(f) is maintained.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art, have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “display generation component” in claims 91, 107, 129, 130, 139, and 159.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 91-97, and 100-170 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 91 recites “the second magnitude of movement includes the first amount of movement in the direction that is parallel” and “the second magnitude of movement includes… third amount of movement is different from the second amount of movement”. Applicant’s remarks dated 8/14/2026 recite ¶0208, ¶0224, ¶0225, and ¶0271-¶0276 and Figs. 7A, 7F, and 7G as support for these amendments. For example:
PNG
media_image1.png
328
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0276]In some embodiments, the respective magnitude of movement is based on (e.g., accounts for, is a summation of, and/or is in accordance with a determination of) (e.g., at least in part) a movement of the first input (e.g., 751d) along an arc (e.g., 718) defined by the wrist of the user and one or more fingers of the user (e.g., 716) and a distance of movement (e.g., 720) of the first input (e.g., (e.g., in a respective direction) along an axis (e.g., y-axis of 704) that is parallel to the first direction of scrolling the content (e.g. content is scrolled up and down along the y-axis). Basing the respective magnitude of movement on movement along an arc defined by the wrist of the user and one or more fingers of the user and a distance of movement of the first input that is parallel to the first direction of scrolling the content improves how user interfaces are scrolled using air gestures. (emphasis added)
The described movement above does not include the same “first amount of movement”. The distances shown indicate that the movement along the arc changes the amount of movement in both axes shown. The Examiner was unable to find a same amount of movement included in the first and second magnitude in the disclosure. Accordingly, the subject matter described in this section is considered new matter. Similarly for claims 129-130.
Dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective independent or intervening claim(s) and are rejected on the same basis.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Bos et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0258576), referred to as Bos herein [previously cited].
Scapel et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0335930), referred to as Scapel herein [previously cited].
Slonneger et al. (US Patent Application publication 2016/0282952), referred to as Slonneger herein [previously cited].
Ang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0153430), referred to as Ang herein [previously cited].
Rao (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0032215), referred to as Rao herein [previously cited].
Birnbaum et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0104165), referred to as Birnbaum herein [previously cited].
Bisbee et al. (US Patent Application publication 2019/0094967), referred to as Bisbee herein [previously cited].
Noble (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0252968), referred to as Noble herein [previously cited].
Du et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0195983), referred to as Du herein [previously cited].
Vassigh et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0193939), referred to as Vassigh herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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) 91-93, 95-97, 103, 105, 107-109, 114-115, 121, 124, 129-133, 135, 137, 139-140, 144-145, 149, 151-153, 155, 157, 159-160, 164-165, and 169 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh.
Regarding claim 91, Bos discloses a computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (Bos, ¶0015-¶0017 – processor executing software programs stored in hardware memory. GUI displayed on a touch-sensitive display screen of the electronic device. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as one of the hardware display devices described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0049 and ¶0064):
displaying, via the display generation component, a graphical user interface including a representation of content (Bos, Figs. 3-4 with ¶0032-¶0034 – continuous scroll mode indicator displayed and email content);
detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first set of one or more inputs that includes a first input (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – touch input directed to scroll indicator handle. The touch input changes location in a direction from the original location); and
in response to detecting the first set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first input includes a first magnitude of movement, scrolling the representation of content in a first direction at a first rate (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location),
wherein: the first magnitude of movement includes a first amount of movement in a direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the first magnitude of movement includes a second amount of movement in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction
in accordance with a determination that the first input includes a second magnitude of movement, different from the first magnitude of movement, scrolling the representation of content in the first direction at a second rate different from the first rate, wherein: the second magnitude of movement includes perpendicular to the first direction
However, in the same field of endeavor, Du discloses graphical interface management (Du, Abstract), including
the first magnitude of movement includes a second amount of movement in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to a depth direction that extends outward away from a viewpoint of a user of the computer system (Du, Fig. 7 with ¶0055, ¶0068, ¶0087-¶0090 – 3D gesture interface, including for scrolling inputs, for small form factor mobile devices such as smart phones).
Therefore, 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 interface of Bos to include 3D scrolling and associated gestures based on the teachings of Du. The motivation for doing so would have been to adapt the scrolling techniques to 3D GUI interfaces (Du, ¶0002-¶0003) enabling compatibility with a wider range of devices and software.
However, Bos as modified does not appear to expressly disclose the second magnitude of movement includes the first amount of movement in the direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the second magnitude of movement includes a third amount of movement in the direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the depth direction that extends outward away from the viewpoint of the user of the computer system.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vassigh discloses receiving input gestures from the user (Vassigh, Abstract), and performing scrolling operations in response (Vassigh, ¶0134), including
wherein: the second magnitude of movement includes the first amount of movement in the direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the second magnitude of movement includes a third amount of movement in the direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the depth direction that extends outward away from the viewpoint of the user of the computer system, wherein the third amount of movement is different from the second amount of movement (Vassigh, Figs. 11G and 15 with ¶0180-¶0182 – scrolling through a menu can have increased speed if the user maintains lateral position but pushes outward in the z direction away from the viewpoint of the user. The farther the user pushes, the faster the response).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos as modified to include adjusting speed based on z-direction motion based on the teachings of Vassigh. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend gesture functionality via an intuitive interface response, especially for environments incorporating 3D gestures (Vasisgh, ¶0003).
Regarding claim 92, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: after scrolling the representation of content at a respective rate and while continuing to detect the first input, detecting that movement of the first input has ceased; and in response to detecting that movement of the first input has ceased, while the first input continues to be detected, continuing to scroll the representation of content at the respective rate (Bos, Figs. 2 with 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. ¶0027-¶0029 – scrolling mode is entered and maintained while a change in handle location is not detected).
Regarding claim 93, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 92 above, and further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: while continuing to scroll the representation of content at the respective rate, detecting that the first input has ended; and in response to detecting that the first input has ended, ceasing to scroll the representation of the content (Bos, Figs. 2 with ¶0027-¶0029, ¶0039 – scrolling mode is exited when the touch input has ended).
Regarding claim 95, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 92 above, and further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: after detecting that the movement of the first input has ceased and while the first input continues to be detected, detecting additional movement of the first input; and in response to detecting the additional movement of the first input, changing the respective rate of scrolling the representation of content (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
Regarding claim 96, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: before scrolling the representation of content at a second respective rate, detecting, via the one or more input devices: a first portion of the first input at a first position; and a second portion, after the first portion, of the first input that includes a respective magnitude of movement away from the first position; and in response to detecting the second portion of the first input, beginning to scroll the representation of content at the second respective rate (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
Regarding claim 97, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; and the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator (Bos, Figs. 3-4 with ¶0032-¶0034 – continuous scroll mode indicator displayed and email content. Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – input directed to scroll indicator handle. The input changes location in a direction from the original location).
Regarding claim 103, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes scrolling the representation of content in a same direction as a direction of the first input; and scrolling the representation of content at the second rate includes scrolling the representation of content in a same direction as a direction of the first input (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
Regarding claim 105, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fourth input directed to the representation of content; and in response to detecting the fourth input: in accordance with a determination that the fourth input includes a first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a first rate of scrolling that is based on the first amount of movement; and in accordance with a determination that the fourth input includes a second amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a second rate of scrolling that is based on the second amount of movement and that is different from the first rate of movement (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Fig. 2 with ¶0028 – processes can continue to detect additional touch inputs after a touch input has ended).
Regarding claim 107, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above and further discloses, wherein the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator, the one or more programs further including instructions for: prior to displaying the graphical user interface that includes the scrolling indicator, displaying the graphical user interface including the representation of content without including the scrolling indicator; while displaying the graphical user interface including the representation of content without including the scrolling indicator, detecting a request to scroll the representation of content; and in response to detecting the request to scroll the representation of content: scrolling the representation of content; and displaying, via the display generation component, the scrolling indicator (Bos, Fig. 3 with ¶0032 – email message list. Fig. 4 with ¶0033-¶0034 – scroll mode indicator is shown in response to detecting a request to enter scroll mode to scroll content).
Regarding claim 108, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a fifth portion of the first input; and in response to detecting the fifth portion of the first input, changing an appearance of the scrolling indicator (Bos, Figs. 5-8 with ¶0035-¶0037 – adjusting the scroll input indicator in response to movement of the scroll input).
Regarding claim 109, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 108 above, and further discloses wherein changing the appearance includes: adding a set of one or more graphical elements to the scrolling indicator that scroll under a moveable element of the scrolling indicator that is moved when the representation of content is being scrolled (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0034-¶0037 - scrolling indicator (Element 404) is shown translucently such that scrolled elements beneath it can be seen within it. New Elements (such as the full “William Smith 9:29 am” email and others below it) are added to the interface and visible within the scrolling indicator as scrolling occurs).
Regarding claim 114, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above and further discloses wherein scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes scrolling in a horizontal direction and/or a vertical direction; and scrolling the representation of content at the second rate includes scrolling in the horizontal direction and/or the vertical direction (Bos, ¶0030 – upward/downward vertical directions).
Regarding claim 115, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein: the first input that includes the first magnitude of movement is an input of a first input type; the first input that includes the second magnitude of movement is an input of the first input type; scrolling the representation of the content at the first rate or at the second rate corresponds to a first manner of scrolling; and the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the first set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first input is a fourth input type, different from the first input type, scrolling the representation of content in a second manner that is different from the first manner (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0020, ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. The direction of scrolling can be different if the direction of the new location compared to the handle is changed).
Regarding claim 121, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indictor; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; and the one or more programs further include instructions for: while displaying the graphical user interface that includes the representation of content and the scrolling indicator: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second set of one or more inputs that includes a first respective input directed at the scrolling indicator; and in response to detecting the second set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first respective input includes a first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content by a first amount; and in accordance with a determination that the first respective input includes a second amount of movement, different from the first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content by a second amount, different from the first amount (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate (amount of movement per time) of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Additionally, scrolling is ended when the input is no longer received).
Regarding claim 124, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 121 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indictor; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a sixth portion of the first input; and the one or more programs further include instructions for: in response to detecting the sixth portion of the first input, changing an appearance of the scrolling indicator in a first manner; and in response to detecting the second set of one or more inputs, forgoing changing the appearance of the scrolling indicator in the first manner (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0028-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Any number of changes in input location can be detected, and corresponding scrolling indicator appearance changes in accordance with the new input location).
Regarding claim 129, Bos discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices, the one or more programs including instructions for (Bos, ¶0015-¶0017 – processor executing software programs stored in hardware memory. GUI displayed on a touch-sensitive display screen of the electronic device. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as one of the hardware display devices described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0049 and ¶0064):
displaying, via the display generation component, a graphical user interface including a representation of content(Bos, Figs. 3-4 with ¶0032-¶0034 – continuous scroll mode indicator displayed and email content);
detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first set of one or more inputs that includes a first input (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – touch input directed to scroll indicator handle. The touch input changes location in a direction from the original location); and
in response to detecting the first set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first input includes a first magnitude of movement, scrolling the representation of content in a first direction at a first rate (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location),
wherein: the first magnitude of movement includes a first amount of movement in a direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the first magnitude of movement includes a second amount of movement in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction
in accordance with a determination that the first input includes a second magnitude of movement, different from the first magnitude of movement, scrolling the representation of content in the first direction at a second rate different from the first rate, wherein: the second magnitude of movement includes from the second amount of movement (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Du discloses graphical interface management (Du, Abstract), including
the first magnitude of movement includes a second amount of movement in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to a depth direction that extends outward away from a viewpoint of a user of the computer system (Du, Fig. 7 with ¶0055, ¶0068, ¶0087-¶0090 – 3D gesture interface, including for scrolling inputs, for small form factor mobile devices such as smart phones).
Therefore, 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 interface of Bos to include 3D scrolling and associated gestures based on the teachings of Du. The motivation for doing so would have been to adapt the scrolling techniques to 3D GUI interfaces (Du, ¶0002-¶0003) enabling compatibility with a wider range of devices and software.
However, Bos as modified does not appear to expressly disclose the second magnitude of movement includes the first amount of movement in the direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the second magnitude of movement includes a third amount of movement in the direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the depth direction that extends outward away from the viewpoint of the user of the computer system.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vassigh discloses receiving input gestures from the user (Vassigh, Abstract), and performing scrolling operations in response (Vassigh, ¶0134), including
wherein: the second magnitude of movement includes the first amount of movement in the direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the second magnitude of movement includes a third amount of movement in the direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the depth direction that extends outward away from the viewpoint of the user of the computer system, wherein the third amount of movement is different from the second amount of movement (Vassigh, Figs. 11G and 15 with ¶0180-¶0182 – scrolling through a menu can have increased speed if the user maintains position but pushes outward in the z direction away from the viewpoint of the user. The farther the user pushes, the faster the response).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos as modified to include adjusting speed based on z-direction motion based on the teachings of Vassigh. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend gesture functionality via an intuitive interface response, especially for environments incorporating 3D gestures (Vasisgh, ¶0003).
Regarding claim 130, Bos discloses a method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices: displaying, via the display generation component, a graphical user interface including (Bos, ¶0015-¶0017 – processor executing software programs stored in hardware memory. GUI displayed on a touch-sensitive display screen of the electronic device. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as one of the hardware display devices described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0049 and ¶0064):
a representation of content (Bos, Figs. 3-4 with ¶0032-¶0034 – continuous scroll mode indicator displayed and email content);
detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first set of one or more inputs that includes a first input (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – touch input directed to scroll indicator handle. The touch input changes location in a direction from the original location); and
in response to detecting the first set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first input includes a first magnitude of movement, scrolling the representation of content in a first direction at a first rate (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location),
wherein: the first magnitude of movement includes a first amount of movement in a direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the first magnitude of movement includes a second amount of movement in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction
in accordance with a determination that the first input includes a second magnitude of movement, different from the first magnitude of movement, scrolling the representation of content in the first direction at a second rate different from the first rate, wherein: the second magnitude of movement includes from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Du discloses graphical interface management (Du, Abstract), including
the first magnitude of movement includes a second amount of movement in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to a depth direction that extends outward away from a viewpoint of a user of the computer system (Du, Fig. 7 with ¶0055, ¶0068, ¶0087-¶0090 – 3D gesture interface, including for scrolling inputs, for small form factor mobile devices such as smart phones).
Therefore, 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 interface of Bos to include 3D scrolling and associated gestures based on the teachings of Du. The motivation for doing so would have been to adapt the scrolling techniques to 3D GUI interfaces (Du, ¶0002-¶0003) enabling compatibility with a wider range of devices and software.
However, Bos as modified does not appear to expressly disclose the second magnitude of movement includes the first amount of movement in the direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the second magnitude of movement includes a third amount of movement in the direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the depth direction that extends outward away from the viewpoint of the user of the computer system.
However, in the same field of endeavor Vassigh discloses receiving input gestures from the user (Vassigh, Abstract), and performing scrolling operations in response (Vassigh, ¶0134), including
wherein: the second magnitude of movement includes the first amount of movement in the direction that is parallel to the first direction; and the second magnitude of movement includes a third amount of movement in the direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the depth direction that extends outward away from the viewpoint of the user of the computer system, wherein the third amount of movement is different from the second amount of movement (Vassigh, Figs. 11G and 15 with ¶0180-¶0182 – scrolling through a menu can have increased speed if the user maintains position but pushes outward in the z direction away from the viewpoint of the user. The farther the user pushes, the faster the response).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos as modified to include adjusting speed based on z-direction motion based on the teachings of Vassigh. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend gesture functionality via an intuitive interface response, especially for environments incorporating 3D gestures (Vasisgh, ¶0003).
Regarding claim 131, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above and further discloses after scrolling the representation of content at a respective rate and while continuing to detect the first input, detecting that movement of the first input has ceased; and in response to detecting that movement of the first input has ceased, while the first input continues to be detected, continuing to scroll the representation of content at the respective rate (Bos, Figs. 2 with 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. ¶0027-¶0029 – scrolling mode is entered and maintained while a change in handle location is not detected).
Regarding claim 132, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: before scrolling the representation of content at a second respective rate, detecting, via the one or more input devices: a first portion of the first input at a first position; and a second portion, after the first portion, of the first input that includes a respective magnitude of movement away from the first position; and in response to detecting the second portion of the first input, beginning to scroll the representation of content at the second respective rate (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
Regarding claim 133, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; and the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator (Bos, Figs. 3-4 with ¶0032-¶0034 – continuous scroll mode indicator displayed and email content. Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – input directed to scroll indicator handle. The input changes location in a direction from the original location).
Regarding claim 135, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes scrolling the representation of content in a same direction as a direction of the first input; and scrolling the representation of content at the second rate includes scrolling the representation of content in a same direction as a direction of the first input (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
Regarding claim 137, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fourth input directed to the representation of content; and in response to detecting the fourth input: in accordance with a determination that the fourth input includes a first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a first rate of scrolling that is based on the first amount of movement; and in accordance with a determination that the fourth input includes a second amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a second rate of scrolling that is based on the second amount of movement and that is different from the first rate of movement (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Fig. 2 with ¶0028 – processes can continue to detect additional touch inputs after a touch input has ended).
Regarding claim 139, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses wherein the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator, the one or more programs further including instructions for: prior to displaying the graphical user interface that includes the scrolling indicator, displaying the graphical user interface including the representation of content without including the scrolling indicator; while displaying the graphical user interface including the representation of content without including the scrolling indicator, detecting a request to scroll the representation of content; and in response to detecting the request to scroll the representation of content: scrolling the representation of content; and displaying, via the display generation component, the scrolling indicator (Bos, Fig. 3 with ¶0032 – email message list. Fig. 4 with ¶0033-¶0034 – scroll mode indicator is shown in response to detecting a request to enter scroll mode to scroll content).
Regarding claim 140, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a fifth portion of the first input; and in response to detecting the fifth portion of the first input, changing an appearance of the scrolling indicator (Bos, Figs. 5-8 with ¶0035-¶0037 – adjusting the scroll input indicator in response to movement of the scroll input).
Regarding claim 144, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above and further discloses wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes scrolling in a horizontal direction and/or a vertical direction; and scrolling the representation of content at the second rate includes scrolling in the horizontal direction and/or the vertical direction (Bos, ¶0030 – upward/downward vertical directions).
Regarding claim 145, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above and further discloses wherein: the first input that includes the first magnitude of movement is an input of a first input type; the first input that includes the second magnitude of movement is an input of the first input type; scrolling the representation of the content at the first rate or at the second rate corresponds to a first manner of scrolling; and the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the first set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first input is a fourth input type, different from the first input type, scrolling the representation of content in a second manner that is different from the first manner (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0020, ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. The direction of scrolling can be different if the direction of the new location compared to the handle is changed).
Regarding claim 149, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; and the one or more programs further include instructions for: while displaying the graphical user interface that includes the representation of content and the scrolling indicator: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second set of one or more inputs that includes a first respective input directed at the scrolling indicator; and in response to detecting the second set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first respective input includes a first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content by a first amount; and in accordance with a determination that the first respective input includes a second amount of movement, different from the first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content by a second amount, different from the first amount (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate (amount of movement per time) of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Additionally, scrolling is ended when the input is no longer received).
Regarding claim 151, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above and further discloses after scrolling the representation of content at a respective rate and while continuing to detect the first input, detecting that movement of the first input has ceased; andin response to detecting that movement of the first input has ceased, while the first input continues to be detected, continuing to scroll the representation of content at the respective rate (Bos, Figs. 2 with 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. ¶0027-¶0029 – scrolling mode is entered and maintained while a change in handle location is not detected).
Regarding claim 152, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses before scrolling the representation of content at a second respective rate, detecting, via the one or more input devices: a first portion of the first input at a first position; and a second portion, after the first portion, of the first input that includes a respective magnitude of movement away from the first position; and in response to detecting the second portion of the first input, beginning to scroll the representation of content at the second respective rate (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
Regarding claim 153, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; and the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator (Bos, Figs. 3-4 with ¶0032-¶0034 – continuous scroll mode indicator displayed and email content. Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – input directed to scroll indicator handle. The input changes location in a direction from the original location).
Regarding claim 155, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes scrolling the representation of content in a same direction as a direction of the first input; and scrolling the representation of content at the second rate includes scrolling the representation of content in a same direction as a direction of the first input (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
Regarding claim 157, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fourth input directed to the representation of content; and in response to detecting the fourth input: in accordance with a determination that the fourth input includes a first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a first rate of scrolling that is based on the first amount of movement; and in accordance with a determination that the fourth input includes a second amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a second rate of scrolling that is based on the second amount of movement and that is different from the first rate of movement (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Fig. 2 with ¶0028 – processes can continue to detect additional touch inputs after a touch input has ended).
Regarding claim 159, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses wherein the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator, further comprising: prior to displaying the graphical user interface that includes the scrolling indicator, displaying the graphical user interface including the representation of content without including the scrolling indicator; while displaying the graphical user interface including the representation of content without including the scrolling indicator, detecting a request to scroll the representation of content; and in response to detecting the request to scroll the representation of content: scrolling the representation of content; and displaying, via the display generation component, the scrolling indicator (Bos, Fig. 3 with ¶0032 – email message list. Fig. 4 with ¶0033-¶0034 – scroll mode indicator is shown in response to detecting a request to enter scroll mode to scroll content).
Regarding claim 160, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a fifth portion of the first input; and in response to detecting the fifth portion of the first input, changing an appearance of the scrolling indicator (Bos, Figs. 5-8 with ¶0035-¶0037 – adjusting the scroll input indicator in response to movement of the scroll input).
Regarding claim 164, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above and further discloses wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes scrolling in a horizontal direction and/or a vertical direction; and scrolling the representation of content at the second rate includes scrolling in the horizontal direction and/or the vertical direction (Bos, ¶0030 – upward/downward vertical directions).
Regarding claim 165, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above and further discloses wherein: the first input that includes the first magnitude of movement is an input of a first input type; the first input that includes the second magnitude of movement is an input of the first input type; scrolling the representation of the content at the first rate or at the second rate corresponds to a first manner of scrolling; and the method further comprising: in response to detecting the first set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first input is a fourth input type, different from the first input type, scrolling the representation of content in a second manner that is different from the first manner (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0020, ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. The direction of scrolling can be different if the direction of the new location compared to the handle is changed).
Regarding claim 169, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; and the method further comprises: while displaying the graphical user interface that includes the representation of content and the scrolling indicator: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second set of one or more inputs that includes a first respective input directed at the scrolling indicator; and in response to detecting the second set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the first respective input includes a first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content by a first amount; and in accordance with a determination that the first respective input includes a second amount of movement, different from the first amount of movement, scrolling the representation of content by a second amount, different from the first amount (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate (amount of movement per time) of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Additionally, scrolling is ended when the input is no longer received).
Claim(s) 94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh in further view of Scapel.
Regarding claim 94, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 93 above. However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose wherein ceasing to scroll the representation of content includes gradually decreasing a rate at which the representation of the content is being scrolled until scrolling ceases.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Scapel discloses a GUI interface receiving scrolling inputs (Scapel, Abstract with ¶0242, ¶0249, ¶0281), including
wherein ceasing to scroll the representation of content includes gradually decreasing a rate at which the representation of the content is being scrolled until scrolling ceases (Scapel, Figs. 6Y-6AA with ¶0281-¶0282 – scrolling rate gradually decreases after the end of the user input until it reaches a stop as though there was inertia being gradually slowed by friction).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include simulated inertia and friction to slow to a stop after input is ceased based on the teachings of Scapel. The motivation for doing so would have been enable the user to continue to see different content without having to provide additional input, providing additional feedback without requiring additional user interaction, reducing user mistakes, reducing power usage, and enabling the user to use the device ore quickly and efficiently (Scapel, ¶0282), and to render a more intuitive user interface by simulating real-world dynamics.
Claim(s) 100-101, 134, and 154 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh in further view of Slonneger.
Regarding claim 100, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91 above. However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose wherein: the respective magnitude of movement is based on a rotation of a body part of the user of the computer system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Slonneger discloses a scrolling input (Slonneger, Abstract), including
wherein: the respective magnitude of movement is based on a rotation of a body part of the user of the computer system (Slonneger, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0013, ¶0050-¶0056 – Tilt in the y-z plane (wrist rotation about the x axis) results in adjustment to the content scrolling velocity).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include rotational-based inputs to achieve scrolling based on the teachings of Slonneger. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase simplicity and convenience of the interface (Slonneger, ¶0013).
Regarding claim 101, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 100 above, and further discloses wherein the rotation of the body part includes a rotation of a wrist of the user (Slonneger, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0013, ¶0052-¶0056 – Tilt in the y-z plane (rotation about the x axis) results in adjustment to the content scrolling velocity. ¶0013 - wrist rotations).
Regarding claim 134, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above. However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose wherein: the respective magnitude of movement is based on a rotation of a body part of the user of the computer system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Slonneger discloses a scrolling input (Slonneger, Abstract), including
wherein: the respective magnitude of movement is based on a rotation of a body part of the user of the computer system (Slonneger, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0013, ¶0050-¶0056 – Tilt in the y-z plane (wrist rotation about the x axis) results in adjustment to the content scrolling velocity).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include rotational-based inputs to achieve scrolling based on the teachings of Slonneger. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase simplicity and convenience of the interface (Slonneger, ¶0013).
Regarding claim 154, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above. However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose wherein: the respective magnitude of movement is based on a rotation of a body part of the user of the computer system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Slonneger discloses a scrolling input (Slonneger, Abstract), including
wherein: the respective magnitude of movement is based on a rotation of a body part of the user of the computer system (Slonneger, Figs. 4-5 with ¶0013, ¶0050-¶0056 – Tilt in the y-z plane (wrist rotation about the x axis) results in adjustment to the content scrolling velocity).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include rotational-based inputs to achieve scrolling based on the teachings of Slonneger. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase simplicity and convenience of the interface (Slonneger, ¶0013).
Claim(s) 102 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh in further view of Slonneger in further view of Ang.
Regarding claim 102, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 101 above, and further discloses wherein: the representation of content is scrolled in a first direction; and the respective magnitude of movement is based on: a movement of the first input along an arc defined by the wrist of the user and o
a distance of movement of the first input along an axis that is parallel to the first direction of scrolling the content (Bos, ¶0020, ¶0029-¶0030 – x and y components of touch inputs. The direction of scrolling can be different if the direction of the new location compared to the handle is changed. Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location).
However, Bos as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor Yang discloses gestures for controlling interface elements according to sensed body motions (Ang, Abstract with ¶0186), including
the respective magnitude of movement is based on: a movement of the first input along an arc defined by the wrist of the user and one or more fingers of the user (Ang, Fig. 18 with ¶0187 – rotation is calculated based on rotation of the hand and fingers in combination with the wrist).
Therefore, 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 wrist rotation gesture of Bos as modified to include the hand and fingers based on the teachings of Ang. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the gesture to be more accurately detected, enable a variety of rotational inputs, and more easily differentiate between rotational inputs.
Claim(s) 104, 110-111, 125-128, 136, 141-142, 150, 156, 161-162, and 170 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh in further view of Rao.
Regarding claim 104, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91 above and further discloses wherein detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a gaze input and a movement of an air gesture (Bos, ¶0026, ¶0036, ¶0041 – movement gestures. Du, Fig. 7 with ¶0055, ¶0068, ¶0087-¶0090 – 3D gesture interface, including for scrolling input. Vasisgh, ¶0003).
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
wherein detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a gaze input and a movement of an air gesture (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – gaze and air gestures used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a gaze and air gestures based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 110, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; and displaying the graphical user interface includes: displaying the scrolling indicator with a first appearance while not detecting input directed to the scrolling indicator; and displaying the scrolling indicator with a second appearance, different from the first appearance, when a first
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
a first hover input is detected (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – hover input used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a hover input based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 111, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; prior to scrolling the representation of content at a respective rate and while detecting a appearance; and while scrolling the representation of content at a respective rate in response to detecting the first set of one or more inputs, the scrolling indicator is displayed with a fourth appearance, different from the third appearance (Bos, Figs. 5-8 with ¶0035-¶0037 – adjusting the scroll input indicator in response to movement of the scroll input. The scroll input indicator appearance changes with each change in distance from the original location).
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
a second hover input is detected (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – hover input used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a hover input based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 125, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indictor; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; the one or more programs further includes instructions for: while displaying the graphical user interface that includes the representation of content and the scrolling indicator: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a third set of one or more inputs that includes a second respective input directed at the scrolling indicator; and in response to detecting the third set of one or more inputs: between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0028-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Any number of changes in input location can be detected, and corresponding scrolling indicator appearance changes in accordance with the new input location).
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
in accordance with a determination that the second respective input is directed to a first portion of the scrolling indicator, navigating to a first predetermined position within the representation of the content (Rao, Figs. 1, 3A-3C, 4 with ¶0004, ¶0026-¶0029, ¶0044-¶0048 – scrolling to a specific section based on selection of elements displayed along the scrollbar).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include selection of section identifiers along a scroll identifier based on the teachings of Rao. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user quickly and intuitively jump to content when the user knows which portion of content they would like to view, while also reducing computational overhead (Rao, ¶0008, ¶0029).
Regarding claim 126, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 125 above and further discloses wherein the second respective input is a stationary input (Rao, Figs. 1, 3A-3C, 4 with ¶0004, ¶0026-¶0029, ¶0044-¶0048 – scrolling to a specific section based on selection of elements displayed along the scrollbar. The selection can be a tap (stationary input)).
Regarding claim 127, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 125 above and further discloses wherein the first predetermined position within the representation of the content is at a first end of the representation of the content (Rao, Fig. 3B with ¶0004 – letters A and Z are at corresponding ends of the content).
Regarding claim 128, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 125 above and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indictor; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; the one or more programs further includes instructions for: in response to detecting the third set of one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the second respective input is directed to a second portion of the scrolling indicator, different from the first portion, navigating to a second predetermined position within the representation of the content (Rao, Fig. 3B with ¶0004 – letters A and Z are at corresponding ends of the content. ¶0044 – the user selects the letter P to jump to the corresponding section).
Regarding claim 136, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above and further discloses wherein detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
wherein detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a gaze input and a movement of an air gesture (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – gaze and air gestures used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a gaze and air gestures based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 141, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; and displaying the graphical user interface includes: displaying the scrolling indicator with a first appearance while not detecting input directed to the scrolling indicator; and displaying the scrolling indicator with a second appearance, different from the first appearance, when a first
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
a first hover input is detected (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – hover input used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a hover input based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 142, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; prior to scrolling the representation of content at a respective rate and while detecting a
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
a second hover input is detected (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – hover input used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a hover input based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 150, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; the one or more programs further include instructions for: while displaying the graphical user interface that includes the representation of content and the scrolling indicator: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a third set of one or more inputs that includes a second respective input directed at the scrolling indicator; and in response to detecting the third set of one or more inputs:
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
in accordance with a determination that the second respective input is directed to a first portion of the scrolling indicator, navigating to a first predetermined position within the representation of the content (Rao, Figs. 1, 3A-3C, 4 with ¶0004, ¶0026-¶0029, ¶0044-¶0048 – scrolling to a specific section based on selection of elements displayed along the scrollbar).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include selection of section identifiers along a scroll identifier based on the teachings of Rao. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user quickly and intuitively jump to content when the user knows which portion of content they would like to view, while also reducing computational overhead (Rao, ¶0008, ¶0029).
Regarding claim 156, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above and further discloses wherein detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
wherein detecting the first set of one or more inputs includes detecting a gaze input and a movement of an air gesture (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – gaze and air gestures used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a gaze and air gestures based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 161, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; and displaying the graphical user interface includes: displaying the scrolling indicator with a first appearance while not detecting input directed to the scrolling indicator; and displaying the scrolling indicator with a second appearance, different from the first appearance, when a first
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
a first hover input is detected (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – hover input used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a hover input based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 162, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; prior to scrolling the representation of content at a respective rate and while detecting a
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
a second hover input is detected (Rao, ¶0027, ¶0028 – hover input used to control scrolling based on a cursor).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include a hover input based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to interact with the device in a more natural manner (Rao, ¶0027), thereby providing an intuitive interface that increases user immersion.
Regarding claim 170, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above and further discloses wherein: the graphical user interface includes a scrolling indicator; the first input is directed at the scrolling indicator; the method further comprises: while displaying the graphical user interface that includes the representation of content and the scrolling indicator: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a third set of one or more inputs that includes a second respective input directed at the scrolling indicator; and in response to detecting the third set of one or more inputs:
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao discloses a list scrolling interface (Rao, Abstract), including
in accordance with a determination that the second respective input is directed to a first portion of the scrolling indicator, navigating to a first predetermined position within the representation of the content (Rao, Figs. 1, 3A-3C, 4 with ¶0004, ¶0026-¶0029, ¶0044-¶0048 – scrolling to a specific section based on selection of elements displayed along the scrollbar).
Therefore, 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 input movement gestures of Bos to include selection of section identifiers along a scroll identifier based on the teachings of Rao. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user quickly and intuitively jump to content when the user knows which portion of content they would like to view, while also reducing computational overhead (Rao, ¶0008, ¶0029).
Claim(s) 106, 112-113, 138, 143, 158, and 163 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh in further view of Rogers.
Regarding claim 106, Bos disclose the elements of claim 91 above. However, Bos as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the first input is a first input type, the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fifth input of a second input type, different from the first input type, directed to the representation of content; and in response to detecting the fifth input: in accordance with a determination that the fifth input includes a fifth rate of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a rate of scrolling that is based on the fifth rate of movement of the fifth input.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rogers discloses scrolling gestures (Rogers, Abstract), including
wherein the first input is a first input type, the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fifth input of a second input type, different from the first input type, directed to the representation of content; and in response to detecting the fifth input: in accordance with a determination that the fifth input includes a fifth rate of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a rate of scrolling that is based on the fifth rate of movement of the input (Rogers, Figs. 1A-D with ¶0029, ¶0034 – flick gestures – which are performed via rapid movement of the user’s finger, result in a rapid scroll for a distance determined by the speed of the flick gesture).
Therefore, 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 scroll gestures of Bos to include a flick gesture based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with a variety of ways to scroll the content, thereby offering more precision control – particularly including intuitive, immersive, real-world analog inputs such as a flick.
Regarding claim 112, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 91 above. However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first flick input directed to the representation of content and in a third direction; and in response to detecting the first flick input, scrolling the representation of content by a predetermined amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rogers discloses scrolling gestures (Rogers, Abstract), including
detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first flick input directed to the representation of content and in a third direction; and in response to detecting the first flick input, scrolling the representation of content by a predetermined amount (Rogers, Figs. 1A-D with ¶0029, ¶0034 – flick gestures – which are performed via rapid movement of the user’s finger, result in a rapid scroll for a distance determined by the speed of the flick gesture).
Therefore, 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 scroll gestures of Bos to include a flick gesture based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with a variety of ways to scroll the content, thereby offering more precision control – particularly including intuitive, immersive, real-world analog inputs such as a flick.
Regarding claim 113, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 112 above, and further discloses the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second flick input directed to the representation of content and in a fourth direction that is different from the third direction; and in response to detecting the second flick input, scrolling the representation of content by the predetermined amount (Rogers, Figs. 1A-D with ¶0029, ¶0034 – flick gestures – which are performed via rapid movement of the user’s finger, result in a rapid scroll for a distance determined by the speed of the flick gesture. ¶0027-¶0029 – direction determined by the input movement direction).
Regarding claim 138, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above. However, Bos as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the first input is a first input type, the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fifth input of a second input type, different from the first input type, directed to the representation of content; and in response to detecting the fifth input: in accordance with a determination that the fifth input includes a fifth rate of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a rate of scrolling that is based on the fifth rate of movement of the fifth input.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rogers discloses scrolling gestures (Rogers, Abstract), including
wherein the first input is a first input type, the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fifth input of a second input type, different from the first input type, directed to the representation of content; and in response to detecting the fifth input: in accordance with a determination that the fifth input includes a fifth rate of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a rate of scrolling that is based on the fifth rate of movement of the input (Rogers, Figs. 1A-D with ¶0029, ¶0034 – flick gestures – which are performed via rapid movement of the user’s finger, result in a rapid scroll for a distance determined by the speed of the flick gesture).
Therefore, 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 scroll gestures of Bos to include a flick gesture based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with a variety of ways to scroll the content, thereby offering more precision control – particularly including intuitive, immersive, real-world analog inputs such as a flick.
Regarding claim 143, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above, and further discloses detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first flick input directed to the representation of content and in a third direction; and in response to detecting the first flick input, scrolling the representation of content by a predetermined amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rogers discloses scrolling gestures (Rogers, Abstract), including
detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first flick input directed to the representation of content and in a third direction; and in response to detecting the first flick input, scrolling the representation of content by a predetermined amount (Rogers, Figs. 1A-D with ¶0029, ¶0034 – flick gestures – which are performed via rapid movement of the user’s finger, result in a rapid scroll for a distance determined by the speed of the flick gesture).
Therefore, 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 scroll gestures of Bos to include a flick gesture based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with a variety of ways to scroll the content, thereby offering more precision control – particularly including intuitive, immersive, real-world analog inputs such as a flick.
Regarding claim 158, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above. However, Bos as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the first input is a first input type, further comprising: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fifth input of a second input type, different from the first input type, directed to the representation of content; andin response to detecting the fifth input:in accordance with a determination that the fifth input includes a fifth rate of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a rate of scrolling that is based on the fifth rate of movement of the fifth input.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rogers discloses scrolling gestures (Rogers, Abstract), including
wherein the first input is a first input type, the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, a fifth input of a second input type, different from the first input type, directed to the representation of content; and in response to detecting the fifth input: in accordance with a determination that the fifth input includes a fifth rate of movement, scrolling the representation of content at a rate of scrolling that is based on the fifth rate of movement of the input (Rogers, Figs. 1A-D with ¶0029, ¶0034 – flick gestures – which are performed via rapid movement of the user’s finger, result in a rapid scroll for a distance determined by the speed of the flick gesture).
Therefore, 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 scroll gestures of Bos to include a flick gesture based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with a variety of ways to scroll the content, thereby offering more precision control – particularly including intuitive, immersive, real-world analog inputs such as a flick.
Regarding claim 163, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above, and further discloses detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first flick input directed to the representation of content and in a third direction; and in response to detecting the first flick input, scrolling the representation of content by a predetermined amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rogers discloses scrolling gestures (Rogers, Abstract), including
detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first flick input directed to the representation of content and in a third direction; and in response to detecting the first flick input, scrolling the representation of content by a predetermined amount (Rogers, Figs. 1A-D with ¶0029, ¶0034 – flick gestures – which are performed via rapid movement of the user’s finger, result in a rapid scroll for a distance determined by the speed of the flick gesture).
Therefore, 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 scroll gestures of Bos to include a flick gesture based on the teachings of Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with a variety of ways to scroll the content, thereby offering more precision control – particularly including intuitive, immersive, real-world analog inputs such as a flick.
Claim(s) 116-118, 146-147, and 166-167 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh in further view of Birnbaum.
Regarding claim 116, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91. However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes providing a first type of non-visual feedback while scrolling the representation of content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Birnbaum discloses user interface management including touch responding to touch inputs (Birnbaum, ¶0002 and ¶0027), including
wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes providing a first type of non- visual feedback while scrolling the representation of content (Birnbaum, ¶0021 – haptic effect during scrolling changes with the speed of the scroll and scroll input).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback while scrolling based on the teachings of Birnbaum. The motivation for doing so would have been make the interface more intuitive and immersive by providing the illusion of physical properties (Birnbaum, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 117, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91 above, and further discloses wherein scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes a first scrolling portion and second scrolling portion that corresponds to an end of the first input, including: new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Birnbaum discloses user interface management including touch responding to touch inputs (Birnbaum, ¶0002 and ¶0027), including
providing a second type of non-visual feedback during the first scrolling portion; and providing a third type of non-visual feedback, different from the second type of non-visual feedback, during the second scrolling portion (Birnbaum, ¶0021 – haptic effect during scrolling changes with the speed of the scroll and scroll input).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback while scrolling based on the teachings of Birnbaum. The motivation for doing so would have been make the interface more intuitive and immersive by providing the illusion of physical properties (Birnbaum, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 118, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 116 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting a request to scroll the representation of content that includes a sixth input directed at the representation of content; and in response to detecting the request to scroll the representation of content that includes the sixth input directed at the representation of content, providing a fourth type of non-visual feedback, different from the first type of non-visual feedback, while scrolling the representation of content (Bos, Figs. 5-6 with ¶0035-¶0037 – rate of scrolling is determined based on the distance between the new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input. Birnbaum, ¶0021 – haptic effect during scrolling changes with the speed of the scroll and scroll input).
Regarding claim 146, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above. However, Bos as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes providing a first type of non- visual feedback while scrolling the representation of content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Birnbaum discloses user interface management including touch responding to touch inputs (Birnbaum, ¶0002 and ¶0027), including
wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes providing a first type of non- visual feedback while scrolling the representation of content (Birnbaum, ¶0021 – haptic effect during scrolling changes with the speed of the scroll and scroll input).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback while scrolling based on the teachings of Birnbaum. The motivation for doing so would have been make the interface more intuitive and immersive by providing the illusion of physical properties (Birnbaum, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 147, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above and further discloses wherein scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes a first scrolling portion and second scrolling portion that corresponds to an end of the first input, including: new location of the handle and the original location. Figs. 2 and 7-8 with ¶0029-¶030, ¶0038-¶0040 – scrolling rate is increased when the touch location is a larger distance from the original input. Scrolling rate is decreased when the touch location is a reduced distance from the original input).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Birnbaum discloses user interface management including touch responding to touch inputs (Birnbaum, ¶0002 and ¶0027), including
providing a second type of non-visual feedback during the first scrolling portion; and providing a third type of non-visual feedback, different from the second type of non-visual feedback, during the second scrolling portion (Birnbaum, ¶0021 – haptic effect during scrolling changes with the speed of the scroll and scroll input).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback while scrolling based on the teachings of Birnbaum. The motivation for doing so would have been make the interface more intuitive and immersive by providing the illusion of physical properties (Birnbaum, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 166, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above. However, Bos as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes providing a first type of non- visual feedback while scrolling the representation of content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Birnbaum discloses user interface management including touch responding to touch inputs (Birnbaum, ¶0002 and ¶0027), including
wherein: scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes providing a first type of non- visual feedback while scrolling the representation of content (Birnbaum, ¶0021 – haptic effect during scrolling changes with the speed of the scroll and scroll input).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback while scrolling based on the teachings of Birnbaum. The motivation for doing so would have been make the interface more intuitive and immersive by providing the illusion of physical properties (Birnbaum, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 167, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above and further discloses wherein scrolling the representation of content at the first rate includes a first scrolling portion and second scrolling portion that corresponds to an end of the first input, including:
However, in the same field of endeavor, Birnbaum discloses user interface management including touch responding to touch inputs (Birnbaum, ¶0002 and ¶0027), including
providing a second type of non-visual feedback during the first scrolling portion; and providing a third type of non-visual feedback, different from the second type of non-visual feedback, during the second scrolling portion (Birnbaum, ¶0021 – haptic effect during scrolling changes with the speed of the scroll and scroll input).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback while scrolling based on the teachings of Birnbaum. The motivation for doing so would have been make the interface more intuitive and immersive by providing the illusion of physical properties (Birnbaum, ¶0021).
Claim(s) 119-120, 148, and 168 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh in further view of Bisbee.
Regarding claim 119, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 91 above. However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the one or more programs further including instructions for: detecting a request to select a selectable user interface object; and in response to detecting the request to select the selectable user interface object, providing a respective type of non-visual feedback.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bisbee discloses a haptic response to interaction with a user-interface on a device (Bisbee, Abstract with ¶0035), including
detecting a request to select a selectable user interface object; and in response to detecting the request to select the selectable user interface object, providing a respective type of non-visual feedback (Bisbee, ¶0002 – feedback that a user has selected an element in a user interface. ¶0038-¶0040 – haptic effect is based on user specified configuration or default configuration).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback based on selection of items based on the teachings of Bisbee. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively simulate tactile sensations (Bisbee, ¶0002) that enables the user to more effectively differentiate between selected objects.
Regarding claim 120, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 119 and further discloses wherein providing the respective type of non-visual feedback is based on a non-visual feedback setting, including: in accordance with a determination that an object being selected as the selectable user interface object has a designated type of non-visual feedback, the respective non-visual feedback is the designated type of non-visual feedback; and in accordance with a determination that the object being selected as the selectable user interface object does not have a designated type of non-visual feedback, the respective type of non- visual feedback is a default type of non-visual feedback (Bisbee, ¶0002 – feedback that a user has selected an element in a user interface. ¶0038-¶0040 – haptic effect is based on user specified configuration or default configuration).
Regarding claim 148, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 129 above. However, Bos as modified appears not to expressly disclose detecting a request to select a selectable user interface object; and in response to detecting the request to select the selectable user interface object, providing a respective type of non-visual feedback.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bisbee discloses a haptic response to interaction with a user-interface on a device (Bisbee, Abstract with ¶0035), including
detecting a request to select a selectable user interface object; and in response to detecting the request to select the selectable user interface object, providing a respective type of non-visual feedback (Bisbee, ¶0002 – feedback that a user has selected an element in a user interface. ¶0038-¶0040 – haptic effect is based on user specified configuration or default configuration).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback based on selection of items based on the teachings of Bisbee. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively simulate tactile sensations (Bisbee, ¶0002) that enables the user to more effectively differentiate between selected objects.
Regarding claim 168, Bos as modified discloses the elements of claim 130 above. However, Bos as modified appears not to expressly disclose detecting a request to select a selectable user interface object; and in response to detecting the request to select the selectable user interface object, providing a respective type of non-visual feedback.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bisbee discloses a haptic response to interaction with a user-interface on a device (Bisbee, Abstract with ¶0035), including
detecting a request to select a selectable user interface object; and in response to detecting the request to select the selectable user interface object, providing a respective type of non-visual feedback (Bisbee, ¶0002 – feedback that a user has selected an element in a user interface. ¶0038-¶0040 – haptic effect is based on user specified configuration or default configuration).
Therefore, 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 scrolling of Bos to include non-visual feedback based on selection of items based on the teachings of Bisbee. The motivation for doing so would have been to more effectively simulate tactile sensations (Bisbee, ¶0002) that enables the user to more effectively differentiate between selected objects.
Claim(s) 122-123 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bos in view of Du in further view of Vassigh in further view of Noble.
Regarding claim 122, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 121 above. However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose displaying the graphical user interface includes displaying a cursor; detecting the second set of one or more inputs includes detecting an air gesture that includes movement of at least a portion of a hand of a user of the computer system; and the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the second set of one or more inputs, moving a position of the cursor based on the detected movement of the at least a portion of the hand of the user of the computer system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Noble discloses mobile device scrolling (Noble, Abstract), including
displaying the graphical user interface includes displaying a cursor; detecting the second set of one or more inputs includes detecting an air gesture that includes movement of at least a portion of a hand of a user of the computer system; and the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the second set of one or more inputs, moving a position of the cursor based on the detected movement of the at least a portion of the hand of the user of the computer system (Noble, Figs. 4 and 7-8 with ¶0021, ¶0026, ¶0044, ¶0049 – camera and touch screen sensors detecting the location of a finger of the user and controlling a virtual cursor according to the detected movement of the finger).
Therefore, 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 interface of Bos to include air gestures for controlling a virtual cursor based on selection of items based on the teachings of Noble. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a greater level of control and accuracy over the interface by utilizing a wider variety of gestures and input controls (Noble, ¶0022).
Regarding claim 123, Bos as modified disclose the elements of claim 121 above, and further discloses wherein: the one or more input devices includes a touch-sensitive surface; displaying the graphical user interface includes displaying a with ¶0035-¶0037 – touch input directed to scroll indicator handle. The touch input changes location in a direction from the original location).
However, Bos appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Noble discloses mobile device scrolling (Noble, Abstract), including
the one or more input devices includes a touch-sensitive surface; displaying the graphical user interface includes displaying a cursor; detecting the second set of one or more inputs includes detecting, via the touch-sensitive surface, movement of a contact; and the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the second set of one or more inputs, moving a position of the cursor based on the detected movement of the contact (Noble, Figs. 4 and 7-8 with ¶0021, ¶0026, ¶0044, ¶0049 – camera and touch screen sensors detecting the location of a finger of the user and controlling a virtual cursor according to the detected movement of the finger).
Therefore, 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 interface of Bos to include air gestures for controlling a virtual cursor based on selection of items based on the teachings of Noble. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a greater level of control and accuracy over the interface by utilizing a wider variety of gestures and input controls (Noble, ¶0022).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
