DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final communication is in response to Application No. 18/669,877 filed 5/21/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears “The at least one processor of claim…” for each claim is intended. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
“a system for performing simulation operations”,
“a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications”,
“a system for performing digital twin operations”,
“a system for performing light transport simulation”,
“a system for rendering graphical output”,
“a system for performing deep learning operations”,
“a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content”,
“a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content”,
“a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content”,
“a system for performing hardware testing using simulation”,
“a system for synthetic data generation”, and
“a system for performing generative AI operations”, in claims 15 and 20.
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 15 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions for the limitations that are interpreted as means-plus-function, as shown above, does not appear disclosed within the specification. Specifically, the structure of each of the following systems has not been found in the specification:
“a system for performing simulation operations”,
“a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications”,
“a system for performing digital twin operations”,
“a system for performing light transport simulation”,
“a system for rendering graphical output”,
“a system for performing deep learning operations”,
“a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content”,
“a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content”,
“a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content”,
“a system for performing hardware testing using simulation”,
“a system for synthetic data generation”, and
“a system for performing generative AI operations”. Therefore, claims 15 and 20 fail the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
The following is a quotation 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the claim limitations
“a system for performing simulation operations”,
“a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications”,
“a system for performing digital twin operations”,
“a system for performing light transport simulation”,
“a system for rendering graphical output”,
“a system for performing deep learning operations”,
“a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content”,
“a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content”,
“a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content”,
“a system for performing hardware testing using simulation”,
“a system for synthetic data generation”, and
“a system for performing generative AI operations”, 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of the “systems” in the claims (See specification at [0022]-[0023] and [0160]). 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.
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) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et a. (US 2013/0222247 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
monitoring a plurality of positions at which a user provides input to perform a specific action over time, the specific action associated with a selected region of a user interface. More specifically, steps 508 to 510 pertain to the continuous monitoring of input to character input keys (specific actions) of a portion (selected region) of a virtual keyboard until a minimum number of key selections have been received since the last adjustment of the keyboard (over time) (Liu, abstract, Figure 5A, [0054]-[0055]). Offset vectors (plurality of positions) that define the distance and direction the input (user provided input) is from center of a particular key are determined in step 512 (Liu, Figure 5A, [0056]).
determining a drift pattern with respect to the plurality of positions. More specifically, the offset vectors (plurality of positions) for each key are then used to determine an average offset (drift pattern) (Liu, Figure 5A, step 512, [0056]).
based at least on the drift pattern, automatically adjusting a location of the selected region of the user interface, associated with the specific action, wherein further input provided by the user at subsequent positions corresponding to the drift pattern is able to be registered as input to perform the specific action. More specifically, at least position, size, spacing, and rotation of the particular key (specific action) of the virtual keyboard is adjusted based on the average offset (drift pattern) (Liu, steps 514-522, Figure 5A, [0057]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user input is provided using a touch screen, and wherein the touch screen does not provide tactile feedback associated with the selected region. More specifically, while a physical keyboard provides tactile feedback in the form of keyboard curvature, discrete key caps, and key actuation clicks, touch displays generally lack these physical cues. As a result, the user's hands and fingers may drift while typing on a virtual keyboard (Liu, [0016], [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of the adjusting is based in part on a determined size of the touch screen or space for the user interface. More specifically, to ensure that the boundary of a particular key does not overlap the boundary of an adjacent key (space for the user interface), the adjustment of each key may be limited to a predetermined distance from the home position of the key or limited based on the position of the adjacent keys (Liu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving control data for controlling a magnitude to which the location is adjusted. More specifically, adjusting instructions may calculate the average of 10 vectors and shift the position of a key in the direction of the average offset vector by the magnitude of the average vector up to a given maximum shift (Liu, [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selected region is associated with other input regions corresponding to related actions, and wherein adjusting the location of the selected region further comprises adjusting locations of at least a subset of the other input regions. More specifically, Figure 5B defines a process similar to the process of Figure 5A, however, a grouping of keys of the virtual keyboard (selected region is associated with other input regions corresponding to related actions) are adjusted together by at least position, size, spacing, and rotation (Liu, Figure 5B, [0061]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting the input is provided using both a left hand and right hand; detecting different drift patterns for the left hand and the right hand, wherein the drift patterns are used in adjusting the location of at least the selected region. More specifically, Figure 1 depicts how portions of a virtual keyboard are separately adjusted for each of the left and right hands’ drifted positions (Liu, Figure 1, [0019]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the input corresponds to touch, gesture, or motion input. More specifically, the input is touch on a touchscreen (Liu, abstract, [0001]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches at least one processor comprising: one or more processing units to:
monitor at least one position at which a user provides input to perform a specific action, the specific action associated with a selected region of a user interface. More specifically, steps 508 to 510 pertain to the continuous monitoring of input to character input keys (specific actions) of a portion (selected region) of a virtual keyboard until a minimum number of key selections have been received since the last adjustment of the keyboard (over time) (Liu, abstract, Figure 5A, [0054]-[0055]). Offset vectors (at least one position) that define the distance and direction the input (user provided input) is from center of a particular key are determined in step 512 (Liu, Figure 5A, [0056]).
determine a drift direction with respect to the at least one position. More specifically, the offset vectors (at least one position) for each key are then used to determine an average offset (drift direction) (Liu, Figure 5A, step 512, [0056]).
provide an adjustment value to be applied to a location of the selected region of the user interface, associated with the specific action, according to the drift direction, wherein further input provided by the user at at least one subsequent position corresponding to the drift direction is able to be registered as input to perform the specific action. More specifically, at least position, size, spacing, and rotation of the particular key (specific action) or portion of keys of the virtual keyboard is adjusted based on the average offset (drift direction) (Liu, steps 514-522, Figure 5A, [0057]-[0060; Figure 5B, [0061]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches the processor of claim 9, wherein a user interface is implemented using a touch screen, and wherein the touch screen does not provide tactile feedback associated with the selected region. More specifically, while a physical keyboard provides tactile feedback in the form of keyboard curvature, discrete key caps, and key actuation clicks, touch displays generally lack these physical cues. As a result, the user's hands and fingers may drift while typing on a virtual keyboard (Liu, [0016], [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches the processor of claim 10, wherein a magnitude of the adjusting is based in part on a determined size of the touch screen or space for the user interface. More specifically, to ensure that the boundary of a particular key does not overlap the boundary of an adjacent key (space for the user interface), the adjustment of each key may be limited to a predetermined distance from the home position of the key or limited based on the position of the adjacent keys (Liu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches the processor of claim 9, wherein the selected region is associated with other input regions corresponding to related actions, and wherein adjusting the location of the selected region further comprises adjusting locations of at least a subset of the other input regions. More specifically, Figure 5B defines a process similar to the process of Figure 5A, however, a grouping of keys of the virtual keyboard (selected region is associated with other input regions corresponding to related actions) are adjusted together by at least position, size, spacing, and rotation (Liu, Figure 5B, [0061]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the processor of claim 9, wherein input is provided using both a left hand and a right hand, and wherein the one or more processing units are further to detect different drift patterns for the left hand and the right hand, wherein the different drift patterns are used in adjusting the location of at least the selected region. More specifically, Figure 1 depicts how portions of a virtual keyboard are separately adjusted for each of the left and right hands’ drifted positions (Liu, Figure 1, [0019]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches the processor of claim 9, wherein the input corresponds to touch, gesture, or motion input. More specifically, the input is touch on a touchscreen (Liu, abstract, [0001]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches the processor of claim 9, wherein the processor is included in a system comprising at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for rendering graphical output; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content; a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content; a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content; a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; a system for performing hardware testing using simulation; a system for synthetic data generation; a system for performing generative AI operations; a system implemented using one or more large language model (LLMs); a system implemented using one or more vision language model (VLMs); a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. More specifically, Liu describes an input mechanism of a virtual keyboard, which is construable to be a simulation of input with a physical keyboard (system for performing simulation operations). Displaying the input from typing with the virtual keyboard is construable to be a system for rendering graphical output (Liu, [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claims 16-20, these claims recite the system that substantially performs the steps of performed by the at least one processor of claims 9-12 and 15, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, and further in view of Yoshizawa et al. (US 2021/0011605 A1, hereinafter “Yoshizawa”).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the drift pattern is monitored by an external motion capturing device.
Yoshizawa discloses a personal digital assistant includes a display control unit that causes an object as a target of the touch operation to be displayed in the image display unit. The display control unit causes the object to be displayed based on a relative shaking amount of the operation instruction object (finger) such that the object is shifted in accordance with the relative shaking amount (Yoshizawa, abstract). Figures 9A and 9B depict a head mounted external camera that can be used in accordance with the process of Figure 5A where a camera is used to monitor a operation instruction object (finger) to calculate a relative shaking amount due to the user riding in a rocking vehicle (construable as a drift pattern) and shift the user interface accordingly (Yoshizawa, Figure 5A, 9A, and 9B, at least steps 104-108, [0071]-[0073], [0112]-[0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Liu and Yoshizawa that a method for automatically adjusting a user interface for a touch screen when input drift is detected would include wherein the drift is monitored by an external motion capturing device. With both Liu and Yoshizawa disclosing determining that touch input is not centered on touch user interface controls and adjusting the touch user interface controls accordingly, and with Yoshizawa additionally disclosing monitoring the input drift from an external camera, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method of method for automatically adjusting a user interface for a touch screen when input drift is detected would include wherein the drift is monitored by an external motion capturing device in order to supplement touch detected drift with information from the point of view of the user’s eyes for even better drift adjustment and also to have the option of shifting the touch user interface controls to the proper location before the touch input is received, ultimately limiting erroneous input. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for automatically adjusting a user interface for a touch screen when input drift is detected.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Cantrell (US 2014/0195923 A1) – adjusting user interface regions based on a history of touch inputs.
Peng (US 2024/0176483 A1) – adjusting user interface regions based on a history of touch inputs.
Salter (US 20200233540 A1) – adjusting user interface regions based on a touch inputs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights