DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This action is in response to the U.S. filing dated 05 April 2024 which is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2023/094895, dated 17 May 2023, which claims a foreign priority date of 30 June 2022. A preliminary amendment was submitted on 05 April 2024. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13-16 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 17 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 19 and 20 have been added. Claims 1, 4-16 and 19-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 15 August 2024, 17 January 2025 and 03 November 2025 have been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite “and/or” terminology. Examiner does however note that, “A and/or B” does have a meaning and that meaning is A alone, B alone, or A and B together. The “preferred verbiage” should be more simply “at least one of A and B.” Further, giving the claim limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner will use the broader “or” recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claim 15 recites “by a terminal device, a first interface” while independent claim 1 already establishes “a terminal device” and “a first interface”. Examiner suggests “the terminal device” and “the first interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9 and 13-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ording et al. (US 2014/0143723 A1) in view of Ohazama et al. (US 7,614,018 B1).
As for independent claim 1, Ording teaches a method comprising:
displaying, by a terminal device, a first interface, wherein the first interface comprises a plurality of elements [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0038, 0039 and Fig. 6) ”Applications can be presented on the userbar 600 by, for example, one of two methods. First, the application's icon can be added to the userbar 600 as a permanent fixture, e.g., for most frequently launched applications. Alternatively, the application may not be a permanent fixture of the userbar 600, but may be added thereto … An example of the userbar according to the present invention can be seen in the user interface of FIG. 6. Other examples are seen in subsequent figures which will be further described below. Therein, the userbar 600 includes a number (in this example sixteen) of tiles aligned along a bottom portion of a user interface, the magnification level of which varies”].
receiving, by the terminal device, a first operation for a target element in the plurality of target elements [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0053, 0054) ”in FIG. 6, it will be seen that a cursor 610 rests on top of one tile in the userbar 600, i.e., the tile having the descriptive legend "Clock" thereabove. It will immediately be recognized that the "Clock" tile on which the cursor 610 rests has been magnified to be larger than the surrounding tiles in the userbar 600. This magnification is attributable to the "fisheye" effect which can be provided to the userbar 600 according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention … In this particular exemplary embodiment, not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles”].
moving, by the terminal device, the target element from a first location to a second location in response to the first operation [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0067, 0069 and Figs. 6 and 7) ”During a drag, if the cursor 610 enters the region of the userbar 600, the userbar 600 will expand, e.g., at the nearest point between two existing tiles, to accommodate the item(s) being dragged. This permits new items to be inserted at any position in the bar. While expanded, tile images of the items being dragged can be visible in the bar in the positions they would occupy if dropped within the bar … Reordering items can be implemented in a straightforward manner by dragging an item (tile) to a new position, with similar graphical feedback being provided as for the process of adding an item to the userbar 600”].
scaling down and/or scaling up, by the terminal device, a first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0054, 0061 and Figs. 6 and 7) ”not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles. The amount of magnification can vary as between tiles proximate the cursor position. In this example, the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610. Of course those skilled in the art will appreciate that there are many different types of magnification techniques and algorithms which can be employed to provide this type of functionality. For example, any number of tiles to either side of that over which the cursor is resting could experience some level of magnification … When the cursor 610 enters the userbar region, two distances (d.sub.1 and d.sub.2) are calculated for each tile. More specifically, for each tile the distance d.sub.1 from the cursor 610's position to the left edge of tile and the distance d.sub.2 from the cursor to the right edge of the tile are calculated as seen in FIG. 8(c). If the value of either d.sub.1 or d.sub.2 lies outside the range {-W, W}, then the value is changed to be the closest of -W and W. Scaled values d.sub.1' and d.sub.2' are then calculated … Each tile is then redrawn between d.sub.1' and d.sub.2' having a size which is scaled equally in both width and height from the lower left hand corner by a factor: 1+(d.sub.2'-d.sub.1')/(d.sub.2-d.sub.1)”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, the first tiles in each direction from the center position tile can be scaled up or down.
scaling down and/or scaling up, by the terminal device, a second layer of elements for display [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0054, 0061 and Figs. 6 and 7) ”not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles. The amount of magnification can vary as between tiles proximate the cursor position. In this example, the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610. Of course those skilled in the art will appreciate that there are many different types of magnification techniques and algorithms which can be employed to provide this type of functionality. For example, any number of tiles to either side of that over which the cursor is resting could experience some level of magnification … When the cursor 610 enters the userbar region, two distances (d.sub.1 and d.sub.2) are calculated for each tile. More specifically, for each tile the distance d.sub.1 from the cursor 610's position to the left edge of tile and the distance d.sub.2 from the cursor to the right edge of the tile are calculated as seen in FIG. 8(c). If the value of either d.sub.1 or d.sub.2 lies outside the range {-W, W}, then the value is changed to be the closest of -W and W. Scaled values d.sub.1' and d.sub.2' are then calculated … Each tile is then redrawn between d.sub.1' and d.sub.2' having a size which is scaled equally in both width and height from the lower left hand corner by a factor: 1+(d.sub.2'-d.sub.1')/(d.sub.2-d.sub.1)”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, the second tiles in each direction from the center position tile can be scaled up or down.
Ording does not specifically teach after a first time threshold after the terminal device scales down and/or scaled up the first layer of elements for display. However, in the same field of invention, Ohazama teaches:
after a first time threshold after the terminal device scales down and/or scaled up the first layer of elements for display [(e.g. see Ohazama col 2 lines 34-39, col 5 lines 55-67, col 6 lines 1-6) ”after the icons are first displayed, to enter an iterative loop. The iterative loop repeatedly executes a series of steps that consist, in essence, of waiting, updating, and redisplaying. There are different ways to wait. One way is to simply wait for a certain amount of time, such as 50 milliseconds … The icons are initialized 803 and then displayed 804 on the web page. The process then enters an iterative loop. The process waits 805 for a period of time or for a window system event, as discussed above. When it is done waiting, the process updates the icons and redisplays them 806. The process can update and redisplay each icon by submitting each icon to a process flow such as that illustrated in FIG. 9 or FIG. 11. If the process is not done 807, it loops back to waiting 805 … a high level flow diagram of growing and shrinking an icon in accordance with aspects of some embodiments. After the start 901, if an icon is pointed at 902 it is the indicated icon. Otherwise it is a collateral icon. Most of the time, no icon is indicated. If the icon is collateral and bigger than the small image 903 it is shrunk 905. Otherwise, it is set to the small image 904. If the icon is indicated and smaller than the large image 906, it is grown 908”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Ording and Ohazama, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add after a first time threshold after the terminal device scales down and/or scaled up the first layer of elements for display, as taught by Ohazama, to the teachings of Ording because it helps to remove the appearance of jerky animation behavior of the icon bar (e.g. see Ohazama col 6 lines 54-55).
As for dependent claim 4, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 1 and Ording further teaches:
wherein a scaling down proportion to which the second layer of elements are scaled down for display is greater than a scaling down proportion to which the first layer of elements are scaled down for display, and a scaling up proportion to which the second layer of elements are scaled up for display is less than a scaling up proportion to which the first layer of elements are scaled up for display [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0054, 0059, 0061 and Figs. 6 and 7) ”To establish the variable magnification function, a scaling height H and an effect width W are chosen … The effect width defines a region wherein any tile that lies even partially within W pixels to either side of the cursor position within the userbar region will be scaled … the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610. Of course those skilled in the art will appreciate that there are many different types of magnification techniques and algorithms which can be employed to provide this type of functionality. For example, any number of tiles to either side of that over which the cursor is resting could experience some level of magnification … two distances (d.sub.1 and d.sub.2) are calculated for each tile. More specifically, for each tile the distance d.sub.1 from the cursor 610's position to the left edge of tile and the distance d.sub.2 from the cursor to the right edge of the tile are calculated as seen in FIG. 8(c). If the value of either d.sub.1 or d.sub.2 lies outside the range {-W, W}, then the value is changed to be the closest of -W and W. Scaled values d.sub.1' and d.sub.2' are then calculated using the following sine functions: d.sub.1'=S.times.sine(.pi./2.times.d.sub.1/W) (2)
d.sub.2'=5.times.sine(.pi./2.times.d.sub.2/W) (3) Each tile is then redrawn between d.sub.1' and d.sub.2' having a size which is scaled equally in both width and height from the lower left hand corner by a factor: 1+(d.sub.2'-d.sub.1')/(d.sub.2-d.sub.1)”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, the amount of scaling provided to the second tiles in each direction from the center tile is less than the amount of scaling provided to the first tiles in each direction from the center tile.
As for dependent claim 5, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 4 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: scaling down and/or scaling up, by the terminal device, an Nth layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements for display, wherein the Nth layer of elements and the second layer of elements are all elements centered on the second location, the Nth layer of elements are elements on an outer side of the second layer of elements and N is greater than 2 [(e.g. see Ording paragraph 0054 and Figs. 6 and 7) ”not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles. The amount of magnification can vary as between tiles proximate the cursor position. In this example, the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610. Of course those skilled in the art will appreciate that there are many different types of magnification techniques and algorithms which can be employed to provide this type of functionality. For example, any number of tiles to either side of that over which the cursor is resting could experience some level of magnification”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, the third tiles in each direction from the center position tile can also be scaled up or down.
As for dependent claim 6, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 5 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: when a Mth layer of elements comprise an element in a dock bar, scaling down/and or scaling up, by the terminal device, the element in the dock bar for display, wherein M is less than or equal to N [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0038, 0039 and Figs. 6 and 7) ”the userbar 600 includes a number (in this example sixteen) of tiles aligned along a bottom portion of a user interface, the magnification level of which varies based on the position … the application's icon can be added to the userbar 600 as a permanent fixture, e.g., for most frequently launched applications”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, the tiles being size adjusted are on a dock.
As for dependent claim 7, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 5 and Ording further teaches:
wherein a scaling down proportion to which the Nth layer of elements are scaled down for display is greater than a scaling down proportion to which the second layer of elements are scaled down for display, and a scaling up proportion to which the Nth layer of elements are scaled up for display is less than a scaling up proportion to which the second layer of elements are scaled up for display [(e.g. see Ording paragraph 0054 and Figs. 6 and 7) ”not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles. The amount of magnification can vary as between tiles proximate the cursor position. In this example, the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610. Of course those skilled in the art will appreciate that there are many different types of magnification techniques and algorithms which can be employed to provide this type of functionality. For example, any number of tiles to either side of that over which the cursor is resting could experience some level of magnification”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, the third tiles in each direction from the center position tile can also be scaled up or down.
As for dependent claim 8, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 1 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the scaling down and/or scaling up, by the terminal device, a first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements for display comprises: scaling down, by the terminal device, the first layer of elements at a first moment, and displaying the scaled-down first layer of elements [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0054, 0056 and Fig. 6 and 7) ”not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles. The amount of magnification can vary as between tiles proximate the cursor position. In this example, the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610 … certain tiles experience increased magnification, while other tiles' magnification decreases, based on their relative distance to the current cursor position”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, as the user moves on the bar a first layer tile (e.g. folder icon) is scaled down.
scaling up, by the terminal device, the scaled-down first layer of elements at a second moment, and displaying the scaled-up first layer of elements [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0053, 0056 and Figs. 6, 7, and 8(d)) ”Tile on which the cursor 610 rests has been magnified to be larger than the surrounding tiles in the userbar 600 … certain tiles experience increased magnification, while other tiles' magnification decreases, based on their relative distance to the current cursor position”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6, 7 and 8(d), as the user moves on the bar the first layer tile (e.g. folder icon) can be scaled to the largest size.
and scaling down, by the terminal device, the scaled-up first layer of elements at a third moment, and displaying the first layer of elements [(e.g. see Ording paragraph 0054, 0056 and Fig. 6) ”not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles. The amount of magnification can vary as between tiles proximate the cursor position. In this example, the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610 … certain tiles experience increased magnification, while other tiles' magnification decreases, based on their relative distance to the current cursor position”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7, as the user moves on the bar the first layer tile can be scaled back down to the size when the movement started.
As for dependent claim 9, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 8 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the size of the scaled-down first layer of elements is less than a size of the first layer of elements, and a size of the scaled-up first layer of elements is greater than the size of the first layer of elements [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0053, 0054, 0056 and Figs. 6, 7 and 8(d)) ”Tile on which the cursor 610 rests has been magnified to be larger than the surrounding tiles in the userbar 600 … not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles. The amount of magnification can vary as between tiles proximate the cursor position. In this example, the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610 … certain tiles experience increased magnification, while other tiles' magnification decreases, based on their relative distance to the current cursor position”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Figs. 6, 7, and 8(d), the first layer tiles can be presented in the smallest form or the largest form based on the user’s movement on the bar.
As for dependent claim 13, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 1 and Ording further teaches:
wherein a size of the target element is positively correlated with a quantity of layers around the second location in the plurality of elements [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0052, 0054) ”the number of tiles which can fit in the userbar 600 in a single row is dependent upon the screen size and the size of each individual tile. Since screen sizes are fixed, the only way to increase the number of tiles in the userbar 600 is to reduce their size … not only is the tile upon which cursor 610 rests magnified, but so are surrounding tiles. The amount of magnification can vary as between tiles proximate the cursor position. In this example, the magnitude of the magnification level is a function of the distance of each tile edge from the cursor 610. Of course those skilled in the art will appreciate that there are many different types of magnification techniques and algorithms which can be employed to provide this type of functionality. For example, any number of tiles to either side of that over which the cursor is resting could experience some level of magnification. Alternatively, only the individual tile over which the cursor is resting can be magnified. The level (percentage) of magnification of each tile can also be varied in any desired manner”].
As for dependent claim 14, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 1 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the size of the target element is positively correlated with a range covered by the first layer [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0059, 0061 and Figs. 8B-D) ”When the cursor 610 enters the userbar region, two distances (d.sub.1 and d.sub.2) are calculated for each tile. More specifically, for each tile the distance d.sub.1 from the cursor 610's position to the left edge of tile and the distance d.sub.2 from the cursor to the right edge of the tile are calculated as seen in FIG. 8(c). If the value of either d.sub.1 or d.sub.2 lies outside the range {-W, W}, then the value is changed to be the closest of -W and W. Scaled values d.sub.1' and d.sub.2' are then calculated … The effect width defines a region wherein any tile that lies even partially within W pixels to either side of the cursor position within the userbar region will be scaled”].
As for dependent claim 15, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 1 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the target element is an element in a folder, and the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a second operation for the folder; and the display, by a terminal device, a first interface comprises: displaying, by the terminal device, the first interface in response to the second operation [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0063, 0078) ”The userbar 600 can also support drag launching and storage, e.g., the ability to open or store a document by dragging it to an application or folder, respectively, that resides on the userbar 600 as a tile … a file can be dropped onto a folder residing on the userbar 600, resulting in the file being moved or copied to the target folder”].
As for dependent claim 16, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 1 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the target element comprises an application icon, a card, a widget, a folder, a card set, an image icon, or an album icon [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0038, 0039 and Fig. 6) ”Applications can be presented on the userbar 600 by, for example, one of two methods. First, the application's icon can be added to the userbar 600 as a permanent fixture, e.g., for most frequently launched applications. Alternatively, the application may not be a permanent fixture of the userbar 600, but may be added thereto … An example of the userbar according to the present invention can be seen in the user interface of FIG. 6. Other examples are seen in subsequent figures which will be further described below. Therein, the userbar 600 includes a number (in this example sixteen) of tiles aligned along a bottom portion of a user interface, the magnification level of which varies”].
As for independent claim 19, Ording and Ohazama teach a device. Claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for independent claim 20, Ording and Ohazama teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claim 20 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ording et al. (US 2014/0143723 A1) in view of Ohazama et al. (US 7,614,0118 B1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Neuman et al. (US 2013/0232414 A1).
As for dependent claim 10, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 8, but do not specifically teach wherein the scaling down and/or scaling up, by the terminal device, a first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements for display comprises: inwardly scaling down and/or outwardly scaling up, by the terminal device, the first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements for display by using the second location as a center. However, in the same field of invention, Neuman teaches:
wherein the scaling down and/or scaling up, by the terminal device, a first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements for display comprises: inwardly scaling down and/or outwardly scaling up, by the terminal device, the first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements for display by using the second location as a center [(e.g. see Neuman paragraph 0049, 0051 and Fig. 3) ”FIG. 3 illustrates one example of a graphical user interface. An ordered list is displayed as a receding spiral in a virtual 3-D space. Each item has a position on the screen as represented by X, Y and Z Cartesian coordinates. In general, in this embodiment, icons that appear larger, have a lower value on the Z-axis … 316 is larger and has a lower value on the Z-axis and is therefore represented as being the next file in the list. Following 316 is 318, then 320 and 322 and so on”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 3, the thumbnails inwardly scale down towards the center of the spiral.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Ording, Ohazama and Neuman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the scaling down and/or scaling up, by the terminal device, a first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements for display comprises: inwardly scaling down and/or outwardly scaling up, by the terminal device, the first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements for display by using the second location as a center, as taught by Neuman, to the teachings of Ording and Ohazama because it allows for a sufficient number of items to be seen and leaves a desirable amount of space in the center (e.g. see Neuman paragraph 0061).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ording et al. (US 2014/0143723 A1) in view of Ohazama et al. (US 7,614,0118 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fan et al. (US 2024/0427486 A1, foreign app. cited on 15 August 2024 IDS).
As for dependent claim 11, Ording and Ohazama teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the moving, by the terminal device, the target element from a first location to a second location in response to the first operation comprises: in response to the first operation, scaling down, by the terminal device, the target element, and displaying the scaled-down target element or if the first operation continuously acts on the target element, scaling up, by the terminal device, the scaled down target element, and displaying the scaled-up target element and moving, by the terminal device, the scaled-up target element from the first location to the second location. However, in the same field of invention, Fan teaches:
wherein the moving, by the terminal device, the target element from a first location to a second location in response to the first operation comprises: in response to the first operation, scaling down, by the terminal device, the target element, and displaying the scaled-down target element [(e.g. see Fan paragraph 0228 and Fig. 4 numerals 401, 403, 404) ”When a touch and hold operation performed by the user on the first 05application icon is detected, for example, the smartwatch detects a touch and hold operation performed by the user on the weather application icon 402, as shown in (b) in FIG. 4, the smartwatch may display a watch face interface 403. A scaled-down application icon is displayed on the watch face interface 403”].
if the first operation continuously acts on the target element, scaling up, by the terminal device, the scaled down target element, and displaying the scaled-up target element and moving, by the terminal device, the scaled-up target element from the first location to the second location [(e.g. see Fan paragraphs 0234, 0236 and Fig. 4 numerals 403, 404, 405) ”as shown in (b) in FIG. 4, when a drag operation on the weather application icon 402 is detected, the weather application icon 402 may be moved along a drag track of the user. The user may place the weather application icon 402 to a target location through the drag operation … When the user drags the weather application icon 402 close to the target location, a speed at which the user drags the application icon may be reduced. When it is detected that the drag speed is less than a critical speed, the smartwatch displays a watch face interface 405. As shown in (e) in FIG. 4, application icons are displayed on the watch face interface 405 in a third size, where the third size is greater than the first size”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Ording, Ohazama and Fan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the moving, by the terminal device, the target element from a first location to a second location in response to the first operation comprises: in response to the first operation, scaling down, by the terminal device, the target element, and displaying the scaled-down target element and if the first operation continuously acts on the target element, scaling up, by the terminal device, the scaled down target element, and displaying the scaled-up target element and moving, by the terminal device, the scaled-up target element from the first location to the second location, as taught by Fan, to the teachings of Ording and Ohazama because it increases the efficiency and speed of moving an icon to a target location (e.g. see Fan paragraphs 0009, 0090).
As for dependent claim 12, Ording, Ohazama and Fan teach the method as described in claim 11 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the moving, by the terminal device, the scaled-up target element from the first location to the second location comprises: when it is determined that there is a first element at the second location in a process in which the terminal device moved the scaled-up target element from the location to the second location, moving, by the terminal device, the first element to a third location, and moving the scaled-up target element from the first location to the second location [(e.g. see Ording paragraphs 0067-0069) ”During a drag, if the cursor 610 enters the region of the userbar 600, the userbar 600 will expand, e.g., at the nearest point between two existing tiles, to accommodate the item(s) being dragged. This permits new items to be inserted at any position in the bar … The position of the cursor 610, relative to the center-point of the underlying tile, is used to determine at what point the existing tile and insert target tiles swap positions. When item(s) are dropped, the actual tile image(s) representing the item(s) replace their respective translucent insert target tile(s) … Reordering items can be implemented in a straightforward manner by dragging an item (tile) to a new position, with similar graphical feedback being provided as for the process of adding an item to the userbar 600”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2014/0237420 A1 issued to Song et al. on 21 August 2014. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1, 4-16 and 19-20 (e.g. element sizing based on dragging location).
U.S. Patent 10,387,014 issued to Kim et al. on 20 August 2019. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1, 4-16 and 19-20 (e.g. icon sizing based on user dragging).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174