DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This action is in response to the U.S. filing dated 15 May 2024, which claims a foreign priority date of 26 May 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered below.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 May 2024 has been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the non-statutory subject area of carrier/propagated waves/signals. Claim 8 is directed towards a “data storage medium.” The examiner interprets a “data storage medium” as a medium defined by the characteristics in paragraph 0071 of the applicant's specification “from a storage medium (such as an SD card) or from a communication network (not shown)” Thus, claim 8 is rejected for containing non-statutory subject matter of carrier/propagated waves/signals.
Claim 7 is directed towards a computer program product. However, all of the elements claimed could be reasonably interpreted by an ordinary artisan as being software alone, and thus is directed to software per se, which is non-statutory. In order for such a software claim to be statutory, it must be claimed in combination/coupled with an appropriate medium and/or hardware such as memory and processor to establish a statutory category of invention and enable any functionality to be realized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suddreth et al. (US 2010/0131481 A1) in view of Goldstein et al. (US 12,001,499 B1).
As for independent claim 1, Suddreth teaches a method comprising:
pointing actions in respect of a display on a screen of a human-machine interface of a cockpit of an aircraft, the display comprising regions including: [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0023, 0024) ”the display device 102 is located within a cockpit of the aircraft 112 … the user interface device 104 may be realized as a … mouse”].
a text entry region; a navigation chart region; and at least one other region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0029, 0038 and Fig. 6) ”as shown in FIG. 3, in addition to a navigational window 202, the processor 106 and/or flight management system 108 may be cooperatively configured to render or otherwise graphically display a flight plan 300 (or waypoint list) in a separate window 302 (e.g., a flight planning window). It should be appreciated that, in practice, numerous possible configurations and combinations of windows are possible, and the subject matter described herein is not intended to limited to any particular arrangement. For example, the processor 106 and/or flight management system 108 may be cooperatively configured to render or otherwise graphically display information relating to the operating status of the aircraft 112 (e.g., an environmental control window 304) … as shown in FIG. 6, a search field 600 may be shown overlying the windows 202, 302, 304 along with text 602 to indicate the search mode”].
each region being associated with commands that can be activated by performing a pointing action in the region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0024, 0033) ”one or more windows displayed on the display device may each include any number of selectable items, objects, fields, and/or other elements which are currently displayed in the window(s) on the display device … the user interface device 104 may be realized as a … mouse”].
such that: in normal pointing mode, a pointing action in a region triggers a command if any associated with a location where the pointing action is carried out in a region in question [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraph 0033) ”one or more windows displayed on the display device may each include any number of selectable items, objects, fields, and/or other elements which are currently displayed in the window(s) on the display device. In an exemplary embodiment, if an item in the window has been selected, the display system 100 responds in a conventional manner”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
in specific pointing mode, a pointing action in the text entry region or in the navigation chart region triggers the command if any associated with the location where the pointing action is carried out in a region in question, and a pointing action in the at least one other region triggers abandonment of text entry, the commands of the at least one other region being deactivated conversely to the commands of the text entry region and of the navigation chart region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0041) ”the automatic search process 400 initializes by receiving a user input when no selectable item, object, field, and/or other element is selected in a window displayed on the display device (task 402). For example, one or more windows displayed on the display device may each include any number of selectable items, objects, fields, and/or other elements which are currently displayed in the window(s) on the display device. In an exemplary embodiment, if an item in the window has been selected, the display system 100 responds in a conventional manner without continuing execution of automatic search process 400, as will be appreciated in the art. In this manner, the automatic search process 400 continues only when certain items, objects, fields, and/or other elements currently displayed in the windows on the display device are in an inactive state. That is, a user has not activated and/or selected any currently displayed item, object, field, and/or other element, or if the user has previously activated and/or selected any currently displayed item, the process and/or program associated with the activation and/or selection has timed out or expired, as will be understood in the art. In this manner, if no items, objects, fields, and/or other elements are selected … In response to receiving the user input when no item is selected, the automatic search process 400 continues by determining a search context that identifies or designates the window(s) and/or processes for searching (task 404). As described in greater detail below, the search context determines how the automatic search process 400 responds to the received user input depending on the status of the display system. The search context may designate one or more windows for searching for the user input, or designate only an active or focused window (or the current window) … the automatic search process 400 may … otherwise exit and terminate the process (task 410)”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
Suddreth does not specifically teach a controller of the human-machine interface implementing two pointing modes, one of the two pointing modes being a specific pointing mode, which is active when text entry is in progress in the text entry region, and another of the two pointing modes being a normal pointing mode, which is active when no text entry is in progress in the text entry region. However, in the same field of invention, Goldstein teaches:
a controller of the human-machine interface implementing two pointing modes, one of the two pointing modes being a specific pointing mode, which is active when text entry is in progress in the text entry region, and another of the two pointing modes being a normal pointing mode, which is active when no text entry is in progress in the text entry region, such that: [(e.g. see Goldstein col 5 lines 34-35, 42-53, 57-61, col 7 lines 1-22) ”A pointer 112 can be employed in connection with selecting graphical elements displayed in the GUI 100, where position of the pointer 112 is based upon a corresponding position of a mouse … the text entry field 108 and the graphical icon 110 are selectable through use of the pointer 112. As will be described in greater detail herein, different content can be presented to the user on the display depending upon whether the text entry field 108 or the graphical icon 110 is selected … the pointer 112 is positioned over the text entry field 108 and employed in connection with selecting the text entry field 108. Selection of the text entry field 108 can be detected by ascertaining that the pointer 112 is hovered over the text entry field 108 for some threshold amount of time … the text entry field 108 is activated to receive textual input … upon selection of the text entry field 108 of the search box 106 being detected, first content is presented in the first graphical pane 202 in the GUI 200 of the operating system of the computing device … the pointer 112 is positioned over the graphical icon 110 in the search box 106, and the graphical icon 110 is detected as being selected. For example, the computing device can detect that the graphical icon 110 has been selected based upon the pointer 112 hovering over the graphical icon 110 for a threshold amount of time … Upon selection of the graphical icon 110 being detected, the computing device presents a second graphical pane 302 in the GUI 300, where the second graphical pane 302 includes second content that is different from the first content shown in the first graphical pane 202 (FIG. 2). Therefore, different content is presented depending upon whether the text entry field 108 or the graphical icon 110 is detected as being selected”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Suddreth and Goldstein, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a controller of the human-machine interface implementing two pointing modes, one of the two pointing modes being a specific pointing mode, which is active when text entry is in progress in the text entry region, and another of the two pointing modes being a normal pointing mode, which is active when no text entry is in progress in the text entry region, as taught by Goldstein, to the teachings of Suddreth because it allows different content to be presented based on the pointer positioning (e.g. see Goldstein col 5 lines 43-53).
As for dependent claim 2, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 1 and Suddreth further teaches:
wherein, in specific pointing mode, the controller assigns focus both to the text entry region and to the navigation chart region, to allow a user to perform steps of: [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraph 0038 and Fig. 5) ”the processor 106 receives an input signal from the user interface device 104 indicative of a user input, and in response graphically indicates the search mode on the display device 102. In other words, the automatic search process 400 may graphically indicate that the search functionality associated with one or more windows and/or processes is (or will be) activated based upon the received user input, even though the user has not manually selected a search mode or search function for a window and/or process. In accordance with one embodiment, the automatic search process 400 indicates the search mode in a manner that is influenced by the search context. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, if the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field)”].
entering text in the text entry region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraph 0038) ”As shown, the user input `K` is replicated in the search field 500. That is, characters entered as a result of typing and/or keystrokes by a user are reproduced in the search field as they are entered”].
interacting, by the human-machine interface, with the navigation chart in the navigation chart region without losing information already entered in the text entry region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0043, 0044 and Fig. 7) ”if multiple items in satisfy the user input, the automatic search process 400 may render and/or display a list of the items such that a user may select the desired item from the list … if the window is a navigational window and the location of the element corresponds to a location on the navigational map that is beyond the currently displayed region to the right, the automatic search process 400 may scroll the navigational window to the right (e.g., the navigational map shifts right to left) until the element is positioned within the window as desired”].
continuing text entry in the text entry region without needing to carry out any specific action before continuing text entry [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraph 0039) ”the automatic search process 400 searches automatically as the user input is received, that is, the automatic search process 400 searches without the user manually initiating the search (e.g., by hitting ENTER or graphically selecting the equivalent thereof). In this regard, the automatic search process 400 may be adapted to display a list of partial matches corresponding to elements in the database that satisfy and/or match a partial user input”].
As for dependent claim 3, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 1 and Suddreth further teaches:
wherein the controller assigns a keyboard of the human-machine interface specifically to text entry in specific pointing mode and assigns the keyboard to a general use of the human-machine interface in normal pointing mode [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0034, 0038 and Figs. 5 and 6) ”the automatic search process 400 receives a user input in the form of an alphanumeric and/or textual input via the user interface device 104 (e.g., via a keyboard … the automatic search process 400 may graphically indicate that the search functionality associated with one or more windows and/or processes is (or will be) activated based upon the received user input, even though the user has not manually selected a search mode or search function for a window and/or process. In accordance with one embodiment, the automatic search process 400 indicates the search mode in a manner that is influenced by the search context. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, if the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field) … if the search context designates more than one currently displayed window or the entire system, the processor 106 may render or display a search field or text box overlying one or more windows (e.g., in the center of the display device 102). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, a search field 600 may be shown overlying the windows 202, 302, 304 along with text 602 to indicate the search mode”].
As for dependent claim 4, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 1, but Suddreth does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Goldstein teaches:
wherein, when abandonment of text entry is triggered, any information that has been entered into the text entry region but not validated is recorded in an entry history, an entry history access functionality being activated in specific pointing mode by not in normal pointing mode [(e.g. see Goldstein col 7 lines 15-22, 47-51) ”Upon selection of the graphical icon 110 being detected, the computing device presents a second graphical pane 302 in the GUI 300, where the second graphical pane 302 includes second content that is different from the first content shown in the first graphical pane 202 (FIG. 2). Therefore, different content is presented depending upon whether the text entry field 108 or the graphical icon 110 is detected as being selected … in contrast to the query suggestions 220-226 (FIG. 2) included in the first graphical pane 202, the query suggestions 310-320 can alter over time and may not have been previously submitted to a search engine by the user of the computing device”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 5, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 4, but Suddreth does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Goldstein teaches:
wherein any information that has been entered into the text entry region and validated is also recorded in the entry history [(e.g. see Goldstein col 6 lines 36-39 and Fig. 2) ”the query suggestions 220-226 may include queries previously set forth in the text entry field 108 by the user of the computing device”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 6, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 4, but Suddreth does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Goldstein teaches:
wherein when the entry history access functionality is activated, the text entry region is expanded to display the entry history to partially overlap a region that is inactive in specific pointing mode [(e.g. see Goldstein col 5 line 54 – col 6 line 39 and Figs. 1 and 2) ”Now referring to FIG. 2, a GUI 200 of the operating system of the computing device is depicted, where the GUI 200 corresponds to user-selection of the text entry field 108 in the taskbar 102. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the pointer 112 is positioned over the text entry field 108 and employed in connection with selecting the text entry field 108. Selection of the text entry field 108 can be detected by ascertaining that the pointer 112 is hovered over the text entry field 108 for some threshold amount of time … Upon selection of the text entry field 108 being detected, a first graphical pane 202 is presented in the GUI 200 of the operating system (and displayed on the display of the computing device). The first graphical pane 202 includes first content … The first content included in the first graphical pane 202 can further comprise query suggestions 220-226 … the query suggestions 220-226 may include queries previously set forth in the text entry field 108 by the user of the computing device”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 7, Suddreth and Goldstein teach a computer program product comprising program code instructions that cause the method according to claim 1 to be implemented when the instructions are executed by a processor of a human-machine interface of a cockpit of an aircraft. Claim 7 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 8, Suddreth and Goldstein teach a data storage medium storing a computer program comprising program code instructions that cause the method according to claim 1 to be implemented when the instructions are read and executed by a processor of a human-machine interface of a cockpit of an aircraft. Claim 8 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for independent claim 9, Suddreth and Goldstein teach a device. Claim 9 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 10, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the device as described in claim 9; further, claim 10 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2005/0137758 A1 issued to He et al. on 23 June 2005. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-10 (e.g. cursor control in a flight management system).
U.S. Patent 10,131,444 B1 issued to Toews et al. on 20 November 2018. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-10 (e.g. text entry in an avionics system).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174