DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions that the prior art fails to teach “(a) sequentially determining whether the first macro steps are movements of an optical mouse, pressing or releasing of mouse buttons, or pressing or releasing of keyboard buttons.” The Examiner believes the claim language is broader than what the Applicant may be intending the claim language to disclose. Namely the claim is not explicitly stating that the macro steps must be determined in a sequential order to be firstly a movement of a mouse, secondly a pressing or releasing of mouse buttons and thirdly pressing or releasing of keyboard buttons. Sequentially determining whether the first macro step is a mouse movement OR a mouse press / release OR a key press / release defines that the macro only needs to contain one of those three inputs at any given time due to the OR statements. The Sangster reference teaches recording macros that consist of mouse movements, mouse clicks and / or keyboard inputs and would inherently be determining the source of each input to be one of mouse movements, mouse clicks or key presses as the inputs are being recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-11 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sangster et al (2009/0144621) (herein “Sangster”).
In regards to claims 1 and 10, Sangster teaches an electronic device, comprising: a storage device (See; Fig. 8, p[0016] and p[0035]); and a processing circuit (See; Fig. 8 and p[0017]), configured to acquire first macro codes of first macro steps provided by a source device, and configured to record the first macro codes to the storage device; wherein the electronic device further outputs the first macro codes to a target device such that the target device replays a macro (See; Fig. 2 and p[0016]-p[0017] for storing a recorded macro and outputted to a target device such as a specific mouse button or keyboard button) corresponding to the first macro steps; wherein the processing circuit acquires the first macro codes by following steps: (a) sequentially determining whether the first macro steps are movements of an optical mouse, pressing or releasing of mouse buttons, or pressing or releasing of keyboard buttons; and (b) generating the first macro codes according to results of the step (a) (See; Fig. 2, p[0020] where the macro may include any suitable type of command such as mouse movements, mouse button clicks, keyboard keystrokes, etc. Where the macro command determines which type of input is being recorded and then generates a macro according to the sequence of different inputs recorded by the device). In regards to claims 2 and 11, Sangster teaches wherein the target device is a computer (See; p[0016]-p[0017] where the macro can be stored so that it may be shared with other users (i.e. stored on a computer) and may be recorded on a user interface of a computing device display).
In regards to claims 4 and 13, Sangster teaches wherein the target device is a computer (See; p[0016]-p[0017] where the macro can be stored so that it may be shared with other users (i.e. stored on a computer) and may be recorded on a user interface of a computing device display); wherein the first macro steps are steps for executing at least one program stored in the target device (See; Fig. 2, p[0020] where the macro may include any suitable type of command such as mouse movements, mouse button clicks, keyboard keystrokes, etc. where it is well known that these types of inputs may execute programs on a target device, for example by moving a mouse to a specific icon on display and double clicking to execute the program associated with the icon. Further see p[0025] for executing macros in a program running on the computer).
In regards to claims 5 and 14, Sangster teaches wherein the first macro codes comprise state codes indicating states of the first macro steps (See; p[0027], p[0031] where keypress macros can additionally have states of the keys recorded such as press and hold, time held down, delays, key down events, key up events, etc.).
In regards to claims 6 and 15, Sangster teaches wherein the first macro codes comprising definition codes indicating targets or values of the states, wherein different states of the first macro steps correspond to the definition codes with different data volumes (See; p[0027], p[0031] where
key press macros can additionally have states of the keys recorded such as press and hold with the time
held down recorded).
In regards to claim 7 and 16, Sangster teaches wherein the first macro codes further comprise delay codes indicating delays between different ones of the first macro steps (See; p[0027], p[0031] for
delays recorded).
In regards to claim 8 and 17, Sangster teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to acquire second macro codes of second macro steps performed by the electronic device and configured to record the second macro codes to the storage device (See; Figs. 5-6 and p[0020] where the macro may include any suitable type of command such as mouse movements, mouse button clicks, keyboard keystrokes, etc. Where the macro command may have multiple steps and multiple separate macros may be stored on the device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangster et al (2009/0144621) (herein “Sangster”) in view of Charbonneau et al (2018/0121215) (herein “Charbonneau”). In regards to claims 9 and 18, Sangster teaches wherein the electronic device is an optical mouse which has a wireless connection or a wired connection with a host device (See; Fig. 1 and p[0014]-p[0016] for a wireless mouse with a macro recording function). Sangster fails to explicitly teach wherein the electronic device further performs at least one of following operations while recording the first macro steps: pre-erasing the storage device, decreasing a report rate of the optical mouse, and ignore at least portion of tasks from the host device. However, Charbonneau teaches wherein the electronic device further performs at least one of following operations while recording the first macro steps: pre-erasing the storage device, decreasing a report rate of the optical mouse, and ignore at least portion of tasks from the host device (See; Fig. 48 and p[0010]-p[0011] teaches where when recording a macro command a state of the target application can be monitored, where parts of the macro command can be not executed / ignored if they are not compatible with the target application). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sangster to ignore incompatible tasks in a macro so as to prevent errors / crashes that may occur with executing incompatible tasks in a particular application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights