DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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: “an icon display unit” in claims 1, 7, 10 and 11, “a processing executing unit” in claims 1 and 4.
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 second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations in claim 1 “an icon display unit configured to cause a display…”, “a processing executing unit configured to execute processing… “,
Claim limitations in claim 4 “the processing executing unit executes start processing ...”,
Claim limitations in claim 7 “the icon display unit causes the display to display …”,
Claim limitations in claim 10 “the icon display unit starts to display …” and
Claim limitations in claim 11 “the icon display unit moves ….”.
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed functions. Examiner has looked fig 2 items 51 and 52 and associated paragraphs of the specification. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9 are rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of claims 1 upon which it depends.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, because it incorporates all limitations of claim 1.
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1, 4, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9 are rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of claims 1 upon which it depends.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, because it incorporates all limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wheeler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0246967 A1 hereinafter Wheeler)
With regard to claims 1, 12-14, Wheeler teaches a user interface providing apparatus, a user interface providing system, a method for providing a user interface, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising:
an icon display unit <para 0028> configured to cause a display, included in a head-mounted device, to display an icon, and to move the icon in accordance with a motion of a head detected by a sensor included in the head-mounted device <HMD with sensor to detect movement data and to display menu/icons para 0017-0018>; and
a processing executing unit <para 0023> configured to execute processing in accordance with the icon when the icon is kept displayed in a set region over a set time period <icon can be displayed over a region for a predetermined time para 0075-0076>.
With regard to claim 2, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Wheeler teaches wherein the processing is display processing for causing the display to display an effect indicating that the icon has been selected <selected item can be displayed larger para 0078>.
With regard to claim 4, this claim depends upon claim 2, which is rejected above. In addition, Wheeler teaches wherein the set time period is a first set time period, and when the icon is kept displayed in the set region over a second set time period longer than the first set time period, the processing executing unit executes start processing for starting an application associated with the icon <additional predetermined movement such as holding the cursor can be applied for selecting and executing the application para 0075-0076, fig 7D> .
With regard to claim 5, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Wheeler teaches wherein the processing is start processing for starting an application associated with the icon <an application selected from the menu can be started para 0064>.
With regard to claim 6, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Wheeler teaches wherein the display has a display region that displays a video image <video image can be displayed para 0016>, and the set region is set in a center of the display region <set region can be in the center of the display para 0081>.
With regard to claim 7, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Wheeler teaches wherein the icon display unit causes the display to display a plurality of icons including the icon, and moves the plurality of icons in a same direction for a same distance in accordance with the motion <objects can be moved in the same direction having a speed (distance) corresponding to the movement of the wearable device para 0098>.
With regard to claim 11, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Wheeler teaches wherein icon display unit moves the icon in a direction opposite to a move of a viewpoint following the motion <movement can be in opposite direction of the head movement para 0073>.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Day et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0235729 A1 hereinafter Day).
With regard to claim 3, this claim depends upon claim 2, which is rejected above.
In the same field of endeavor, Day teaches wherein the effect is an animation of a line running along an outer periphery of the icon <selected object can be shown in an animation para 0007>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wheeler, Day before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Wheeler to include the teachings of Day, in order to obtain animation effect as taught by Day. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides a visual presentation of the selection of an object.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Wheeler et al (US Patent 8643951 B1 hereinafter Wheeler951).
With regard to claim 8, this claim depends upon claim 7, which is rejected above. Wheeler does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Wheeler951 teaches wherein the plurality of icons is arranged in a horizontal direction in a row, and the motion involves moving a viewpoint in the horizontal direction <icons (menus) are arranged and move in a horizontal direction para 0084>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wheeler, Wheeler951 before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Wheeler to include the teachings of Wheeler951, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Wheeler951. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an organization of objects on a display that are easier to see and select and Examiner notes that it is well known in the art.
With regard to claim 9, this claim depends upon claim 7, which is rejected above. Wheeler does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Wheeler951 teaches wherein the plurality of icons is arranged in a matrix in vertical and horizontal directions <see fig 3C icons arranged in a matrix>, and the motion is a motion in the vertical and horizontal directions <movement can be in the upward (vertical), “right” direction (horizontal) col 4 lines 5-17>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wheeler, Wheeler951 before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Wheeler to include the teachings of Wheeler951, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Wheeler951. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an organization of objects on a display that are easier to select and Examiner notes that it is well known in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of HONG et al (US Patent 2017/0041455 A1 hereinafter Hong).
With regard to claim 10, this claim depends upon claim 7, which is rejected above. Wheeler does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Hong teaches wherein the plurality of icons includes a previous execution icon associated with an application executed previously, and the icon display unit starts to display the plurality of icons while the previous execution icon is displayed in the set region <frequently used applications/icons can be displayed in the display region para 0269, fig 23>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wheeler, Hong before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Wheeler to include the teachings of Hong, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Hong. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides icons that are pertinent to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kurata (US 2021/0144359 A1) – head-mounted display with icon selection para 0041.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights