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 .
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/24/2026.
Claim(s) 28-51 is/are pending in the application.
Claim(s) 1-27, 52-170 was/were previously canceled.
Independent claim(s) 28, 50-51 was/were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s), regarding the amended portion(s) as recited in independent claim 28 (and similarly in independent claim(s) 50-51), filed 02/24/2026, have/has been fully considered and is/are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, adding/using Burns to be relied upon for the aforementioned amended portion(s). To note, applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 28-31, 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandryk et al. (US 2011/0202834 A1) in view of Jian et al. (US 2008/0120568 A1) and Burns et al. (US 2021/0366440 A1).
In regards to claim 28, Mandryk teaches a method comprising: at a computer system in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices (e.g. [0183],Fig.12: computing environment 1200 includes storage 1240, one or more input devices 1250, one or more output devices 1260, and one or more communication connections 1270; see also [0185]: output device(s) 1260 may be a display, printer, speaker, CD-writer, or another device that provides output from the computing environment 1200):
displaying, via the display generation component, a virtual object at a first position within an environment (e.g. [0078],Fig.5: in display state 590, user 302 interacts with a touchscreen by making a flick gesture 510, which is indicated by a leftward-pointing arrow; the flick gesture 510 causes an inertia motion in content layer 532, which continues to move after the gesture 510 has ended; Examiner’s note: display state 590 shows element 542 (virtual object) at a first position);
while displaying, via the display generation component, the virtual object at the first position, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first input including a request to move the virtual object from the first position to a second position within the environment, different from the first position (e.g. as above, [0078],Fig.5: in display state 590, user 302 interacts with a touchscreen by making a flick gesture 510; see also [0079]: from display state 590, the flick gesture 510 causes a leftward movement in the layers and leads to display state 592, in which element 540 is no longer visible, and elements 542 and 544 have moved to the left; Examiner’s note: display state 592 shows element 542 has moved to a second position);
in response to receiving the first input, displaying, via the display generation component, the virtual object at the second position within the environment (e.g. as above, [0078],Fig.5: in display state 590, user 302 interacts with a touchscreen by making a flick gesture 510; [0079]: from display state 590, the flick gesture 510 causes a leftward movement in the layers and leads to display state 592, in which element 540 is no longer visible, and elements 542 and 544 have moved to the left; Examiner’s note: display state 592 shows element 542 at a second position);
after detecting termination of the first input:
in accordance with a determination that the second position satisfies one or first criteria, including a criterion that is satisfied when a respective portion of the virtual object corresponds to a respective position within the three-dimensional environment that is beyond a movement threshold in the three-dimensional environment, moving the virtual object from the second position to a third position within the environment, wherein the third position is different from the first position and the second position (e.g. [0171]: for example, when the user touches the touchscreen and begins a movement in UI element in a horizontal direction while maintaining contact with the touchscreen, the system 1100 can fire a pan input and begin a horizontal movement in the UI element; system 1100 can continuously update the contact position and rate of movement; when the physical gesture ends (e.g. when user breaks contact with the touchscreen), the system 1100 can determine whether to interpret the motion at the end as a flick by determining how quickly the user's finger, stylus, etc., was moving when it broke contact with the touchscreen, and whether the rate of movement exceeds a threshold; see also [0037]: UI system can distinguish between a non-inertia gesture and an inertia gesture by determining how quickly the user's finger, stylus, etc., was moving when it broke contact with the touchscreen, and whether the velocity exceeds a threshold; if the gesture ends with a velocity above the threshold, the gesture can be interpreted as an inertia gesture; for example, a gesture that starts with panning motion at a velocity below the threshold and ends with a velocity above the threshold can be interpreted as ending with a flick that causes movement to which inertia can be applied; if the gesture ends with a velocity below the threshold, the gesture can be interpreted as a non-inertia gesture; Examiner’s note: as such, once the input (gesture) ends, if the velocity is above a threshold (movement threshold), then inertia is applied to the panning movement which results in further panning movement of the GUI elements (virtual object) to a third position because of the applied inertia); and
in accordance with a determination that the second position does not satisfy the one or more first criteria, maintaining display of the virtual object at the second position within the environment (e.g. as above, [0037]: UI system can distinguish between a non-inertia gesture and an inertia gesture by determining how quickly the user's finger, stylus, etc., was moving when it broke contact with the touchscreen, and whether the velocity exceeds a threshold; if the gesture ends with a velocity below the threshold, the gesture can be interpreted as a non-inertia gesture; also as above, [0171]; Examiner’s note: as such, since the first criteria is not satisfied, the GUI element (virtual object) is not moved further due to the lack of inertia, which results in the GUI element (virtual object) stopping at the second position),
but does not explicitly teach the method,
wherein the environment is a three-dimensional environment, and
wherein the satisfied criterion is when a respective portion of the virtual object has been moved to a respective position within the environment.
However, Jian teaches a method,
wherein the environment is a three-dimensional environment (e.g. [0037]: by dividing a volume above a control surface into various layers of three dimensional space, and associating each three dimensional space with a graphical user interface (GUI), GUIs that are intuitively perceived as stacked on top of each other, such as menus and sub-menus, pages of documents, or various magnifications of images, can be efficiently selected and manipulated by a user; see also Figs.2,4).
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 teachings/combination of Mandryk to use 2D windows within a 3D environment, in the same conventional manner as taught by Jian as both deal with GUI controls. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would help managing different applications at the same time in the GUI by displaying the different windows/applications at different depths within the three-dimensional space.
Further, Burns teaches a method,
wherein the satisfied criterion is when a respective portion of the virtual object has been moved to a respective position within the environment that is beyond a movement threshold in the environment (e.g. [0114]: when the visual object has been moved to a location meeting a resizing criterion with respect to a top or bottom edge of the representation of the physical display (e.g. the second location is a location within a proximity threshold of a top or bottom edge, or when the second location is a location at least partially outside of the first display area proximate to the top or bottom edge) the displaying of the expanded display area of the representation of the physical display may be forgone; Examiner’s note: this shows the use of a satisfied criterion of a portion of an object having been moved to a position beyond a threshold (outside area proximate to top or bottom)).
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 teachings/combination of Mandryk and Jian to use positioning criteria, in the same conventional manner as taught by Burns as both deal with movement of objects on a display. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the use of different criteria, such as positioning of the object, during an input to determine resulting action/position.
In regards to system claim 50 and medium claim 51, claim(s) 50-51 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 28. Therefore, claim(s) 50-51 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 28.
In regards to claim 29, the combination of Mandryk, Jian and Burns teaches a method, wherein the virtual object is moved to the second position while the first input is ongoing, and the virtual object is moved to the third position in response to detecting the termination of the first input (e.g. Mandryk as above, [0171],[0037]; Examiner’s note: this occurs when the GUI element (virtual object) continues to move to a third position due to inertia even after detecting the termination of the first input (finger slide or flick)).
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Mandryk, Jian and Burns teaches a method, wherein the displaying of the virtual object at the second position occurs in response to receiving the first input and after detecting the termination of the first input (e.g. Mandryk as above, [0171],[0037]; Examiner’s note: this occurs when the GUI element (virtual object) does not continue to move to a third position and stays at the second position due to lack of inertia even after detecting the termination of the first input (finger slide or flick)).
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Mandryk, Jian and Burns teaches a method, further comprising:
in response to receiving the first input, after detecting the termination of the first input, and before displaying the virtual object at the second position and before displaying the virtual object at the third position, moving the virtual object from a fourth position to the second position within the three-dimensional environment with simulated inertia (e.g. Mandryk as above, [0171],[0037]; Examiner’s note: this occurs when the GUI element (virtual object) continues to move at least from a starting position (first position); the claimed fourth position may be an intermediate position between the first and second position along which the GUI element is displayed as it pans or slides in response to the finger sliding input or flick; Jian as above, [0037]: dividing a volume above a control surface into various layers of three dimensional space, and associating each three dimensional space with a graphical user interface (GUI)).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mandryk, Jian and Burns as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Bates et al. (US 2013/0169649 A1).
In regards to claim 42, the combination of Mandryk, Jian and Burns teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the moving of the virtual object from the second position to the third position includes movement of the virtual object from the second position to the third position (e.g. Mandryk as above, [0171],[0037]; Examiner’s note: while Mandryk teaches movement of the GUI elements (virtual objects) from a second position to a third position due to inertia, it is unclear whether an animation is shown), but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein the moving of the virtual object includes displaying an animation of the movement.
However, Bates teaches a method, wherein the moving of the virtual object includes displaying an animation of the movement (e.g. [0017]: in one or more implementations, an endpoint for an animation involving movement is exposed for use by software associated with the user interface in which the movement is to be applied, such as to applications, controls, and so on; the animation, for instance, may be configured to support touch panning that involves an amount of inertia, such as in response to a flick in which the user interface continues to move after input of the flick).
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 teachings/combination of Mandryk, Jian and Burns to include an animation of movement, in the same conventional manner as taught by Bates as both deal with displaying/manipulating GUI elements. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user to visually understand how GUI elements are being moved or changed over time by showing the full movement over a series of frames displayed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 32-41, 43-49 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am - 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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights