The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 05/30/2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final.
§112(b) Rejection – Indefiniteness
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
In particular, the limitation “causing the cursor to not be used” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to disabling the cursor, preventing display of the cursor, ignoring cursor input, preventing cursor interaction with the user interface, or performing some other operation.
Because the meaning and scope of this limitation can not be ascertained, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Therefore, the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
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 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 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 1, 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walkin et al. (US 2021/0240332; Hereinafter Walkin) in view of Cho et al. (US 2008/0256477; Hereinafter Cho).
Re claims 1 and 8-9, Walkin teaches a method, comprising:
at a first application executing on a computer system (fig. 6A and [0245], execute a function associated with the respective user interface object):
receiving a first request to use a respective cursor behavior ([0266], when the cursor has a default shape and size when a request to select an area of the user interface is received. Also see [0358], if the device receives a fifth input via the one or more input devices corresponding to a request to move the cursor, in response to receiving the fifth input, the device moves the cursor in accordance with the fifth input from the fourth location); and
in conjunction with receiving the first request to use the respective cursor behavior:
in accordance with a determination that the respective cursor behavior is first cursor behavior, causing a cursor to operate in a first manner (fig. 6C0 and [0266], in response to detecting the selection input and while the selection input is being received (e.g., while and for the duration of when the click is held), cursor 630 becomes smaller and/or darker, as shown in FIG. 6CO); and
in accordance with a determination that the respective cursor behavior is second cursor behavior different from the first cursor behavior, causing the cursor to not be used ([0266], in response to the user input, cursor 630 changes shape and/or size and begins expanding in accordance with the user input (e.g., changes from circular to rectangular). In some embodiments, the expanded shape and/or size of cursor 630 allows the user to select multiple objects for input. Thus, in some embodiments, when the cursor has a default shape and size when a request to select an area of the user interface is received, the initial shape and size of the cursor is the default shape and size, and the cursor begins expanding (in accordance with the user input) from the default shape and size (e.g., and optionally changes to have a rectangular shape upon expanding) . Also see [0383], simplifies the interaction between the user and the electronic device and enhances the operability of the electronic device and makes the user-device interface more efficient (e.g., by automatically hiding the cursor when the input device for controlling the cursor is disconnected, thus preventing the user from attempting to control the cursor or otherwise requiring the user to perform additional inputs to disable display of the cursor)).
Walkin teaches receiving a first request to use a respective cursor behavior ([0266]) but Walkin does not explicitly teach receiving, from a second application different from the first application, a first request to use a respective cursor behavior. However, it is taught by Cho ([0004], terminal, receiving a request to execute a second application task while the first application task is being performed, and displaying a second task display, the second task display associated with the second application task and at least partially replacing the first task display, wherein at least a portion of the second task display is identified by an active cursor configured to allow a user to select a function associated with the second application task and at least one display feature of the active cursor indicates that the first application task is concurrently being performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Cho’s content into Walkin’s invention because it would provide user an enhanced system wherein a plurality of application can perform task concurrently.
Re claim 5, Walkin teaches wherein the first request to use the respective cursor behavior is included in a view of a user interface that corresponds to the second application, and wherein the view of the user interface includes a definition of the first virtual object (fig. 6BR and [0251], another selection 603 of the “tab” key is received on external keyboard 593. As described above, a “tab” key input optionally corresponds to a request to select the next object in the user interface for input. In some embodiments, news story 640-4 is the last selectable user interface object in user interface 604-1 and file 644-1 is the first selectable user interface object in user interface 604-2 (corresponding to a file browser application). Thus, in response to selection 603, electronic device 500 causes cursor 630 to move to file 644-1, and file 644-1 to be selected for input. In some embodiments, because file 644-1 is smaller than the threshold size, the size and shape of cursor 630 conforms to file 644-1 similarly to as described above (e.g., as opposed to maintaining the default size and shape and overlaying the respective user interface element). Also see [0565], displaying a home screen user interface or application switching user interface).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, due to their dependency from indefinite base claim.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the additional limitations, when considered separately, are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-272-4124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178