DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Amendment dated 18 May 2026. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 15, 19 and 20 are amended. Claims 8 and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11-16 and 19-26 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Based on applicant’s amendment, the claim objections of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 19 and 20 are withdrawn.
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, 4-7, 9, 13-16, 19 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ording et al. (US 2014/0143723 A1) in view of Jitkoff (US 2015/0370447 A1).
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”].
at least one of scaling down or scaling up, by the terminal device, a first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements, wherein the first layer of elements are elements within a range that is centered on the second location [(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.
at least one of scaling down or scaling up, by the terminal device, a second layer of elements for display, wherein the second layer of elements are elements within a range that is centered on the second location, and the second layer of elements are on an outer side of the first layer 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 second tiles in each direction from the center position tile can be scaled up or down and the second tiles are outside of the first tiles which are directly adjacent to the center position tile.
Ording does not specifically teach at least one of scaling down or scaling up, by the terminal device, the first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements 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; 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; scaling down, by the terminal device, the scaled-up first layer of elements at a third moment, and displaying the first layer of elements or after a first time threshold after the terminal device performs an initial scale down of the first layer of elements for display. However, in the same field of invention, Jitkoff teaches:
and at least one of scaling down or scaling up, by the terminal device, the first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements 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; 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; 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 Jitkoff paragraphs 0019, 0033 and Figs. 3A-C) ”A user may provide input (e.g., tapping or pressing the touchscreen) at a particular location. In response to the user input, surrounding user elements are animated based on their spatial proximity to the user input, creating a “ripple” effect … create a ripple effect, as the animations extend radially from the location of the input”]. Examiner notes that primary reference Ording establishes that the first layer of elements can be dynamically scaled. Examiner additionally notes that, as discussed throughout applicant’s specification, the scale down -> scale up -> scale down process is referred to as a “ripple effect” and Jitkoff also shows a ripple effect.
after a first time threshold after the terminal device performs an initial scale down of the first layer of elements for display [(e.g. see Jitkoff paragraphs 0034, 0037) ”the timing may be a linear function of the distance from the input location. For example, the timing may be calculated using the formula … the target time for animating a user interface element (t.sub.target.sub.i) is calculated by summing the product of a constant (c) and the distance of the location of the user interface element from the location of the input (d.sub.i) with the time of the input (t.sub.input). The constant may be increased to provide a higher delay in initiating the user interface element animations … while icons may perform an animation extending outward from the input location, timed in a linear delay”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Ording and Jitkoff, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add at least one of scaling down or scaling up, by the terminal device, the first layer of elements around the second location in the plurality of elements 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; 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; scaling down, by the terminal device, the scaled-up first layer of elements at a third moment, and displaying the first layer of elements and after a first time threshold after the terminal device performs an initial scale down of the first layer of elements for display, as taught by Jitkoff, to the teachings of Ording because it allows the animation timing and effects to be customized or altered (e.g. see Jitkoff paragraph 0036).
As for dependent claim 4, Ording and Jitkoff 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 Jitkoff teach the method as described in claim 4 and Ording further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: at least one of scaling down 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 within a range that is 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 Jitkoff 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, at least one of scaling down 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 Jitkoff 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 9, Ording and Jitkoff teach the method as described in claim 1 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 before the scaling down, and a size of the scaled-up first layer of elements is greater than the size of the first layer of elements before the scaling-up [(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 Jitkoff 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 Jitkoff 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 Jitkoff 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 the terminal device, the 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 Jitkoff 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 Jitkoff 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 Jitkoff 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.
As for dependent claim 21, Ording and Jitkoff teach the device as described in claim 19; further, claim 21 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 4.
As for dependent claim 22, Ording and Jitkoff teach the device as described in claim 19; further, claim 22 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 5.
As for dependent claim 23, Ording and Jitkoff teach the device as described in claim 19; further, claim 23 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 6.
As for dependent claim 24, Ording and Jitkoff teach the medium as described in claim 20; further, claim 24 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 4.
As for dependent claim 25, Ording and Jitkoff teach the medium as described in claim 20; further, claim 25 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 5.
As for dependent claim 26, Ording and Jitkoff teach the medium as described in claim 20; further, claim 26 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 6.
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 Jitkoff (US 2015/0370447 A1), 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 Jitkoff 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, Jitkoff 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 Jitkoff 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, Jitkoff 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 18 May 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“[in Ording,] individual tiles distributed along a linear bar based on their ordinal distance from center position do not constitute ‘elements within a range that is centered on the second location’ with a second group ‘on an outer side of the first’ group.” (Pages 10-11).].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ording teaches wherein the second layer of elements are elements within a range that is centered on the second location, and the second layer of elements are on an outer side of the first layer of elements in paragraphs 0054, 0061, 0067, 0069 and Figs. 6 and 7 of Ording’s disclosure [(see rejection of claim 1 above)]. One of ordinary skill in the art, namely a software developer, would recognize that a tile may be dragged from a first location to a second location within the userbar where the dragged tile becomes the central tile and tiles surrounding the central tile are scaled based on a distance range from the central tile (e.g. as depicted in Fig. 6, the first layer tiles [the icons directly adjacent to the central clock icon] and the second layer tiles directly outside of the first layer tiles [the internet explorer icon and the second folder icon]). Thus, the combination adequately teaches applicant’s claimed limitation.
Applicant argues that [“Ohazama does not remedy these deficiencies. Ohazama describes an iterative loop in which icons grow or shrink: the process waits for a time period (e.g., 50 milliseconds), then updates and redisplays all icons … This is a uniform refresh cycle in which all icons are updated together in each iteration.” (Page 11).].
The argument described above, in paragraph number 9, with respect to the newly added limitations to the independent claims has been considered, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights