DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 02/29/2024, said application claims a priority date of 09/01/2021.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 20 and 21 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-21 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.
Independent Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the display" in line 4 and “the selection” in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-19:
Claims 2-19 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims.
Claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the top half" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two opposing edges" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the size of a cluster 30" in line 1 and “the corresponding backend card” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the size of a cluster 30" in line 1, “the boundaries 60” in line 2 and “the frontend, backend or both” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the size of a cluster 30" in line 1, “the boundaries 60” in line 2 and “the size of the backend card” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the size of the focus zone" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the size of the focus zone" in line 1 and “the entirety” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the entirety" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the event" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the selection” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent Claim 21:
Claim 21 recites the limitations “the display” in line 3 and “the event” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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, 5, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by James et al. (US 7,036,080 B1, issued 04/25/2006, hereinafter “James”).
Independent Claim 1:
James discloses a system 10 comprising:
(a) a voice assembly 12 for receiving user voice-inputs and processing said voice- inputs into voice commands comprising cluster commands (The client device comprises a microphone, James: Fig. 2, column 3 lines 61-67 and column 4 lines 1-3. The client device also comprises a browser extension that process voice inputs into voice commands, James: Fig. 1, column 5 lines 23-54. The screen is divided into prioritization areas, wherein each area comprises one or more selectable objects (clusters), the user can provide a voice command that is directed to performing an action associated with an object within a cluster (cluster command), James: Figs. 3 and 5, column 6 lines 18-37.);
(b) a computing device comprising a focus zone 22 defined within the display thereof, wherein when at least one cluster 30, each of which comprising one or more user- selectable items, is within the focus zone 22 whereby one of the at least one cluster 30 and thereby each of the one or more selectable items thereof are said to be focused, the reception of a cluster command by the computing device results in the selection of a corresponding focused item (The screen is divided into areas containing one or more selectable objects (cluster), the area corresponding to the highest priority is highlighted (focus zone), when the user provides a voice command, one of the selectable objects in the highlighted area (focused item) is selected, James: fig. 1, column 3 lines 1-18 and column 5 lines 34-37.).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James further discloses a system comprising:
wherein the focus zone 22 is located within the top half of the display (In the example embodiment, area 305 is the highest priority area (focus zone), James: Fig. 5, column 6 lines 18-25. As seen in Fig. 5, the area 305 is displayed on the top half of the screen.).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James further discloses a system wherein the voice assembly 12 is part of the computing device (The client device comprises a microphone, James: Fig. 2, column 3 lines 61-67 and column 4 lines 1-3. The client device also comprises a browser extension that process voice inputs into voice commands, James: Fig. 1, column 5 lines 23-54.).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James further discloses a system wherein each focused item is pre-paired with a cluster command whereby inputting a cluster command results in the selection of the corresponding focused item (The objects within a group are assigned a voice command (cluster command), wherein inputting the voice command results in the selection of the corresponding object, James: column 4 lines 45-67 and column 5 lines 1-22.).
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James further discloses a system wherein a selectable item comprises one of an app icon, a hyperlink (or link), a control within notification panel, and a key of a virtual keyboard (A selectable object can cause an application to open (link), James: column 5 lines 34-37.).
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James further discloses a system wherein the size of the focus zone 22 is adaptive so as to encompass varying cluster sizes (The screen is divided into different screen areas containing one or more selectable objects (clusters), and assigns priorities to the screen areas based on a criteria (e.g. usage), the highest priority area is highlighted (focus zone), James: Fig. 3, column 3 lines 1-9. The prioritization of the different areas can change (adaptive focus zone), James: column 5 lines 52-63. The different areas correspond to different sizes to accommodate a different group of selectable objects (clusters), James: column 4 lines 66-67 and column 5 lines 1-6.).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James further discloses a system wherein the focus zone 22 is rectangular comprising top and bottom edges (In the example embodiment the area 305 corresponds to the highest priority area (focus zone) and is in a rectangular shape comprising top and bottom edges, James: Fig. 3, column 6 lines 18-28.).
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James further discloses a system wherein a focused cluster 30 comprises a cluster 30 that is sensitive to cluster commands (The highlighted screen area with the highest priority (focus zone) comprises one or more selectable objects (cluster) that can be selected via voice commands (cluster commands), James: column 3 lines 1-18.).
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James further discloses a system wherein in the event of the at least one cluster 30 comprising more than one cluster 30, said more than one cluster comprises a row of two or more clusters 30 (In the example embodiment area 305 corresponds to the highest prioritized area (focus zone), Fig. 3, column 6 lines 18-28. According to claim 1, a cluster comprises “one or more user-selectable items.” Accordingly, a single selectable item can be considered a cluster. As can be seen in Fig. 3, a row of selectable objects (the days of the week) is displayed, James: Fig. 3, column 6 lines 29-37. Examiner considers each selectable day to be a cluster.).
Independent Claim 20:
James discloses a computing device comprising:
(a) a voice assembly 12 for receiving user voice-inputs and processing said voice-inputs into voice commands comprising cluster commands (The client device comprises a microphone, James: Fig. 2, column 3 lines 61-67 and column 4 lines 1-3. The client device also comprises a browser extension that process voice inputs into voice commands, James: Fig. 1, column 5 lines 23-54. The screen is divided into prioritization areas, wherein each area comprises one or more selectable objects (clusters), the user can provide a voice command that is directed to performing an action associated with an object within a cluster (cluster command), James: Figs. 3 and 5, column 6 lines 18-37.);
(b) a processor 14 for receiving the voice commands transmitted by the voice assembly 12 (James: Fig. 2, column 3 lines 52-60, column 4 lines 37-44 and column 5 lines 23-33.); and
(b) a focus zone 22 defined within a display thereof, wherein when at least one cluster 30, each of which comprising one or more user-selectable items, is within the focus zone 22 whereby one of the at least one cluster 30 and thereby each of the one or more selectable items thereof are said to be focused, the reception of a cluster command by the computing device results in the selection of a corresponding focused item (The screen is divided into areas containing one or more selectable objects (cluster), the area corresponding to the highest priority is highlighted (focus zone), when the user provides a voice command, one of the selectable objects in the highlighted area (focused item) is selected, James: fig. 1, column 3 lines 1-18 and column 5 lines 34-37.).
Independent Claim 21:
James discloses a method comprising:
(a) when at least one cluster, each of which comprising one or more user-selectable items, is within a focus zone defined within the display of a computing device, whereby one of the at least one cluster and thereby each of the one or more selectable items thereof are said to be focused, receiving a user voice input via a voice assembly (The screen is divided into areas containing one or more selectable objects (cluster), the area corresponding to the highest priority is highlighted (focus zone), when the user provides a voice command one of the selectable objects in the highlighted area (focused item) is selected, James: fig. 1, column 3 lines 1-18 and column 5 lines 34-37. The client device comprises a microphone, James: Fig. 2, column 3 lines 61-67 and column 4 lines 1-3. The client device also comprises a browser extension that process voice inputs into voice commands, James: Fig. 1, column 5 lines 23-54.);
(b) processing the voice input into a voice command, which may comprise a cluster command, a cluster command comprising a voice command a cluster is sensitive to (The voice input can be processed into a voice command that can select an object from the group of objects (cluster) within the highest prioritized area, James: column 3 lines 1-18 and column 5 lines 23-33.); and
(c) in the event of the voice command being a cluster command, in response to the reception of the cluster command, selecting a corresponding focused item (The screen is divided into areas containing one or more selectable objects (cluster), the area corresponding to the highest priority is highlighted (focus zone), when the user provides a voice command one of the selectable objects in the highlighted area (focused item) is selected, James: fig. 1, column 3 lines 1-18 and column 5 lines 34-37.).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Piernot et al. (US 2016/0351190 A1, published 12/01/2016, hereinafter “Piernot”).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the display comprises portrait display.
However, Piernot teaches a system wherein the display comprises portrait display (The voice command enabled comprises a portrait display, Piernot: Fig. 8A, abstract, ¶ [0106], [0236]-[0237].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein the display comprises portrait display, as taught by Piernot.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a display orientation that is more suitable to the device implementing the voice command functionality (Piernot: Fig. 8A, ¶ [0030]).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the voice assembly 12 comprises a microphone 18 for receiving the voice-input from the user (The client device comprises a microphone, James: Fig. 2, column 3 lines 61-67 and column 4 lines 1-3.).
James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the voice assembly 12 comprises a natural language processing module 20 for processing the voice-inputs into voice commands executable by the computing device (James: Fig. 7B, abstract, ¶ [0071], [0210].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein the voice assembly 12 comprises a natural language processing module 20 for processing the voice-inputs into voice commands executable by the computing device, as taught by James.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for processing voice commands wherein the user’s intent is better understood (James: Fig. 7B, abstract, ¶ [0210]-[0215].).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the computing device comprises a smartphone 24.
However, Piernot teaches a system wherein the computing device comprises a smartphone 24 (Piernot: Fig. 8A, abstract, ¶ [0030], [0106], [0236]-[0237].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein the display comprises portrait display, as taught by Piernot.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility in the types of devices that can provide the voice command functionality (Piernot: Fig. 8A, ¶ [0030]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Bathiche et al. (US 2016/0180798 A1, published 06/23/2016, hereinafter “Bathiche”).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the focus zone 22 extends between the two opposing edges of the display.
However, Bathiche teaches a system wherein the focus zone 22 extends between the two opposing edges of the display (The focus region extends between the two opposing edges of the display, Bathiche: Fig. 9, ¶ [0040].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein the focus zone 22 extends between the two opposing edges of the display, as taught by Bathiche.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide greater flexibility for generating focus regions that are more suitable to the computing device being used (Bathiche: Figs. 6-9, ¶ [0021]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Zhang (US 2021/0011609 A1, published 01/14/2021, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the voice assembly 12 is part of an external device paired with the computing device.
However, Zhang teaches a method wherein the voice assembly 12 is part of an external device paired with the computing device (Zhang: Figs. 2 and 4, ¶ [0045], [0094], [0162]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Jame wherein the voice assembly 12 is part of an external device paired with the computing device, as taught by Zhang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a voice input interface that is more suitable to the device implementing the voice command functionality, in particular when the device is a television device (Zhang: Figs. 2 and 4, ¶ [0045], [0050], [0094], [0162]).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Miyashita et al. (US 2010/0037183 A1, published 02/11/2010, hereinafter “Miyashita”).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined by the boundaries 60 said cluster 30 either on the frontend, backend, or both.
However, Miyashita teaches a system wherein the size of a focusable area, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined by the boundaries 60 said focusable area either on the frontend, backend, or both (The user can move a focus area (focus zone) to one of a plurality of focusable areas in order to make the focusable area enter a selection state, Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract. The focus area adapts its size in order to fully encompass a focusable area, Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, ¶ [0063]-[0064]. The focus area is a translucent and displayed over the focusable area, Miyashita: ¶ [0055]. Accordingly, Examiner considers the focus area to be a frontend element and the focusable area to be a backend element.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein the size of a focusable area, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined by the boundaries 60 said focusable area either on the frontend, backend, or both, as taught by Miyashita.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to easily designate the area that he/she wishes to focus on (Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract, ¶ [0063]-[0064]).
In implementing the movable focus area functionality into the invention of James, the focusable area that the focus area adapts to (as taught by Miyashita) would correspond to a cluster since the focusable areas in the invention of James correspond to areas displaying one or more selectable objects (clusters). Accordingly, in combination, James in view of Miyashita teaches a system wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined by the boundaries 60 said cluster 30 either on the frontend, backend, or both.
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the corresponding backend card.
However, Miyashita teaches a system wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the corresponding backend area (The user can move a focus area (focus zone) to one of a plurality of focusable areas in order to make the focusable area enter a selection state, Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract. The focus area adapts its size in order to fully encompass a focusable area, Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, ¶ [0063]-[0064]. The focus area is a translucent and displayed over the focusable area, Miyashita: ¶ [0055]. Accordingly, Examiner considers the focus area to be a frontend element and the focusable area to be a backend element.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the corresponding backend area, as taught by Miyashita.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to easily designate the area that he/she wishes to focus on (Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract, ¶ [0063]-[0064]).
In implementing the movable focus area functionality into the invention of James, the focusable area that the focus area adapts to (as taught by Miyashita) would correspond to a card since the focusable areas in the invention of James comprises rectangular shaped GUI elements that groups related content or actions (see Fig. 3 of James). Accordingly, in combination, James in view of Miyashita teaches a system wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the corresponding backend card.
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the backend card, which is identified by identifying a marker or markers associated therewith.
However, Miyashita teaches a system wherein the size of a focusable area, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the backend area, which is identified by identifying a marker or markers associated therewith (The user can move a focus area (focus zone) to one of a plurality of focusable areas in order to make the focusable area enter a selection state, Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract. The focus area adapts its size in order to fully encompass a focusable area that is defined by a boundary line (marker), Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, ¶ [0063]-[0064]. The focus area is a translucent and displayed over the focusable area, Miyashita: ¶ [0055]. Accordingly, Examiner considers the focus area to be a frontend element and the focusable area to be a backend element.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein the size of a focusable area, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the backend area, which is identified by identifying a marker or markers associated therewith, as taught by Miyashita.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to easily designate the area that he/she wishes to focus on (Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract, ¶ [0063]-[0064]).
In implementing the movable focus area functionality into the invention of James, the focusable area that the focus area adapts to (as taught by Miyashita) would correspond to a card since the focusable areas in the invention of James comprises rectangular shaped GUI elements that groups related content or actions (see Fig. 3 of James). Accordingly, in combination, James in view of Miyashita teaches a system wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the backend card, which is identified by identifying a marker or markers associated therewith.
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the distance between the top and bottom edges vary so as to accommodate the entirety of a cluster 30 as said cluster is being received within the focus zone 22.
However, Miyashita teaches a system wherein the distance between the top and bottom edges vary so as to accommodate the entirety of a focusable area as said focusable area is being received within the focus zone 22 (The user can move a focus area (focus zone) to one of a plurality of focusable areas in order to make the focusable area enter a selection state, Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract. The focus area adapts its size in order to fully encompass a focusable area (distance between the top and bottom edges vary), Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, ¶ [0063]-[0064].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein the distance between the top and bottom edges vary so as to accommodate the entirety of a focusable area as said focusable area is being received within the focus zone 22, as taught by Miyashita.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to easily designate the area that he/she wishes to focus on (Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract, ¶ [0063]-[0064]).
In implementing the movable focus area functionality into the invention of James, the focusable area that the focus area adapts to (as taught by Miyashita) would correspond to a cluster since the focusable areas in the invention of James correspond to areas displaying one or more selectable objects (clusters). Accordingly, in combination, James in view of Miyashita teaches a system wherein the distance between the top and bottom edges vary so as to accommodate the entirety of a cluster 30 as said cluster is being received within the focus zone 22.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Miyashita and further in view of Bedi et al. (US 2021/0124774 A1, published 04/29/2021, hereinafter “Bedi”).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. James does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein when a threshold portion of at least one cluster 30 is within the focus zone 22, the focus zone 22 at which point is adapted to encompass the entirety of said at least one cluster 30.
However, Miyashita teaches a system wherein when a condition corresponding to the at least one focusable area and the focus zone 22 is met, the focus zone 22 at which point is adapted to encompass the entirety of said at least one focusable area (The user can move a focus area (focus zone) to one of a plurality of focusable areas in order to make the focusable area enter a selection state, Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract. The focus area adapts its size in order to fully encompass a focusable area when the user’s touch input (which corresponds to the focus area) enters the focusable area, Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, ¶ [0063]-[0064].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James wherein when a condition corresponding to the at least one focusable area and the focus zone 22 is met, the focus zone 22 at which point is adapted to encompass the entirety of said at least one focusable area, as taught by Miyashita.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to easily designate the area that he/she wishes to focus on (Miyashita: Figs. 11A-11D, abstract, ¶ [0063]-[0064]).
In implementing the movable focus area functionality into the invention of James, the focusable area that the focus area adapts to (as taught by Miyashita) would correspond to a cluster since the focusable areas in the invention of James correspond to areas displayed one or more selectable objects (clusters). Accordingly, in combination, James in view of Miyashita teaches a system when a condition corresponding to the at least one cluster 30 is within the focus zone 22, the focus zone 22 at which point is adapted to encompass the entirety of said at least one cluster 30.
James in view of Miyashita does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the condition corresponds to a threshold portion of at least one cluster 30 is within the focus zone 22.
However, Bedi teaches a system wherein the condition corresponds to a threshold portion of at least one focusable object is within the focus zone 22 (Bedi: claim 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of James in view of Miyashita wherein the condition corresponds to a threshold portion of at least one focusable object is within the focus zone 22.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for determining when to designate the focusable area as the area of focus (Bedi: claim 5).
In implementing the focus condition feature of Bedi into the invention of James in view of Bedi, the focusable area that is overlapped by the focus zone (as taught by Miyashita would correspond to a cluster since the focusable areas in the invention of James correspond to areas displaying one or more selectable objects (clusters). Accordingly, in combination, James in view of Miyashita teaches a system wherein the size of a cluster 30, which the focus zone 22 adapts to and thereby encompasses, is determined based on the size of the corresponding backend card.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Spalink, US 2009/0305682 A1 (The user can designate a focus area via voice command, Fig. 6, ¶ [0063])
Nirhamo et al., US 2006/0246955 A1 (The interface can comprise focus areas comprising a plurality of selectable objects, Fig. 10A, ¶ [0051])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (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 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178