DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 06/26/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 14, 15, 20, and 21 have been amended. Claims 6-13 and 16-19 have been cancelled. Claims 22-32 have been added. Claims 1-5, 14, 15, and 20-32 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 20, and 21 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretations/Examiner’s Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“when” [e.g. claims 1-5, 14, 15, and 22-31] = 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. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on the “when” condition being true (like when a condition happens, do something (but that something does not need to happen if the triggering condition does not occur)) may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
As to the prior art rejections included below, the Office submits that the cited references show many instances wherein the contingencies are not triggered because at least one other scenario is shown wherein each “when” condition is not true/met.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30:
Line 12 recites “an outer side of the gaze cursor” where “[[an]]the outer side of the gaze cursor” was apparently intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 14, 15, and 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oguma (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0333873, hereinafter “Oguma”) in view of Park (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0321739, hereinafter “Park”).
As to independent claim 1, Oguma shows a banner notification opening method [¶ 01], comprising:
displaying, by a terminal device, a first interface, wherein the first interface comprises a first banner notification, the first banner notification is in a first region of a display of the terminal device, and the first banner notification is a banner notification initiated by a first application [“A banner is an image that is created mainly for advertisement or promotion and serves to introduce another website on a web page. A link to a web page of another website is provided on this image. Selecting the image with a click operation or a touch operation displays the website introduced by the banner. The banner having such a function is called a web banner. In recent years, there have been not only a banner having a link (a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)) for shifting to another website, but also a banner for notifying a user of new information received by another application. The banner having such a function is called a notification banner. When the user selects (taps) the notification banner, the application having received the new information is executed so that the user can immediately access the new information. {…}” (¶ 43) | See also fig. 4A.];
detecting, by the terminal device, that a gaze point is in a preset region; {…} wherein the preset region comprises the first region, the preset region is 1/3 of the display {…} [detecting, by the terminal device, that a gaze point is in a preset region (like, for example, the upper 1/3 region of the screen where banner notifications are displayed | fig. 4B; ¶¶ 43, 47, 51, & 68). See also how MPEP § 2144.05(I) supports the Oguma reference teaching the claimed “1/3” aspect when it states that claimed ranges that “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” are sufficient for purposes of prior art analysis. So even if Oguma did not teach wherein the preset region is the upper 1/3 portion of the screen where banner notifications are displayed (which it does, as evidenced at least in figs. 4A-4D), Oguma also shows a whole display screen and detecting gaze in any region of the display region, meaning that the claimed “1/3 of the display” also overlaps Oguma’s "any region."]; and
displaying, by the terminal device, a second banner notification on the first interface when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region, wherein the second banner notification is the first banner notification that is expanded, and message content in the second banner notification comprises more text of a corresponding message than message content in the first banner notification [a second/expanded version of the first banner notification with more text of a corresponding message may be displayed on the first interface when/if the terminal device detects that a gaze point is in the first region (fig. 4B; ¶ 51). Oguma also explicitly shows scenarios wherein the condition precedent in this contingent limitation is not met (when the terminal device does not detect that the gaze point is in the first region | see fig. 4C), which therefore means that the “displaying, by the terminal device, a second banner notification on the first interface” would not be required.]; or
displaying, by the terminal device, a second interface when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region, wherein the second interface is a displayed interface of the first application that is displayed in response to detecting that the gaze point is in the first region, and the second interface comprises the message content in the second banner notification [Additionally and/or alternatively, a second interface may be displayed with message content from the banner when/if the banner notification is maintained in display when the terminal device detects that a gaze point is in the first region (¶¶ 43, 47, & 68). Oguma also explicitly shows scenarios wherein the condition precedent in this contingent limitation is not met (when the terminal device does not detect that the gaze point is in the first region | see fig. 4C), which therefore means that the “displaying, by the terminal device, a second interface” would not be required.];
wherein a first switch and a second switch [Oguma describes multiple functionalities from the terminal that are deliberately switched/“turned” on or off (¶¶ 45-48, 65-70, & 73-77), including the operability to expand the first banner notification when/if it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region (fig. 4B; ¶ 51) and the operability to open the first application when/if it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region or a second region in which the second banner notification is located (¶¶ 43, 47, & 68).].
Even though Oguma shows multiple examples of monitoring the gaze point and having the display visually react to its detection (see Oguma: figs. 4A-4B), Oguma does not appear to explicitly recite a “gaze cursor” as apparently intended. Oguma also does not appear to explicitly recite “wherein a first switch and a second switch are displayed in a third interface of the terminal device” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Park shows:
displaying, by the terminal device, a gaze cursor on the first interface in response to the terminal device detecting that the gaze point is in the preset region, {…} and the gaze cursor indicates a position of the gaze point on the display [Park shows displaying, by the terminal device, a gaze cursor on the first interface in response to the terminal device detecting that the gaze point is in a preset region (Park: ¶ 68), wherein the preset region comprises any user desired region (including the first region and/or the non-functional design choice of ⅓ of the display | Park: ¶¶ 133-136), and the gaze cursor is used to indicate the position of the gaze point on the display (Park: ¶ 68)]; {…}
wherein a first switch and a second switch are displayed in a third interface of the terminal device, the first switch is configured to: when the first switch is in an on state, for the first banner notification that supports expansion, expand the message content of the first banner notification when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region, wherein the second switch is configured to: when the second switch is in the on state, for the first banner notification that supports expansion and the first banner notification that does not support expansion, open the first application when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region or a second region, and the second region is a region in which the second banner notification is located [In an analogous art where a gaze point is used to control a graphical user interface via displayed switches/menu items (Park: Abstract; ¶¶ 13-15), Park shows the operability to display both a first switch to expand a banner-equivalent GUI element when/if it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region (Park: ¶¶ 133-135) and a second switch to open the first application when/if it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region or a second region (Park: ¶¶ 134-135). Additionally/alternatively, Park shows the operability to configure any visible switch for any user-desired gaze-related functionality, as well as the possibility to have both switches in an off state (Park: ¶¶ 13-15, 133-135, & 144-145). Having both switches in an off state means that neither of the conditions precedent set forth above (“when the first switch is in an on state” and “when the second switch is in the on state”) are met, and as such their respective contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oguma and Park before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Park’s gaze cursor teachings and the operability to display visible gaze-related switches into Oguma. The rationale for doing so would have been “to smoothly and conveniently use a computer through the point of a user's eye gaze” (Park: ¶ 04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Oguma and Park (hereinafter, the “Oguma-Park” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 1.
As to dependent claim 2, Oguma-Park further shows:
displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface after displaying the second banner notification on the first interface, when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region [the second interface may be displayed after displaying the second banner notification on the first interface, when/if the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, & 68 | Park: ¶¶ 133-135)].
As to dependent claim 3, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface after displaying the second banner notification on the first interface, when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region comprises: displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface after displaying the second banner notification on the first interface, when the first banner notification supports expansion and the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region [the second interface may be displayed after displaying the second banner notification on the first interface when/if the first banner notification supports expansion and the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, & 68 | Park: ¶¶ 133-135)].
As to dependent claim 4, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface after displaying the second banner notification on the first interface when the first banner notification supports expansion and the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region comprises: when the first switch is in the on state, the second switch is in the on state, the first banner notification supports expansion, and the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region, displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface after displaying the second banner notification on the first interface [the second interface may be displayed after displaying the expanded/second banner notification on the first interface when/if the Oguma’s functionalities (visualized via Park’s switches) are turned on, the first banner notification supports expansion, and the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, & 68 | Park: ¶¶ 133-135). As shown above, Park also shows when the switches are in the off state, which means the conditions precedent herein are not met.].
As to dependent claim 5, Oguma-Park further shows:
when a duration of displaying the first banner notification is greater than or equal to a first duration, canceling, by the terminal device, display of the first banner notification; or when a total duration of displaying the first banner notification and the second banner notification is greater than or equal to the first duration, canceling, by the terminal device, display of the second banner notification [When/if a duration of displaying either the first or the expanded/second notification meets or exceeds a given threshold, the corresponding banner may be hidden. Oguma-Park also covers the scenarios wherein the above conditions precedent are not met. (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 49, 52, 55, & 73 | Park: ¶¶ 146-147).].
As to dependent claim 14, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein a third switch is displayed in the third interface, wherein the third switch is configured to enable or disable display of the gaze cursor [a third switch is disposed in the terminal device that is configured to enable or disable display of the gaze cursor (Park: fig. 12B; ¶ 141)], and
the displaying, by the terminal device, the gaze cursor on the first interface when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the preset region comprises: when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the preset region and the third switch is in the on state, displaying, by the terminal device, the gaze cursor on the first interface [Given the combination set forth above, it would have been obvious to display Park’s gaze cursor when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the preset region (Oguma: fig. 4B; ¶¶ 43, 47, 51, & 68) and the third switch is on (Park: fig. 12B; ¶ 141). Oguma-Park also shows “when {…} the switch is in the off state” (Park: ¶¶ 13-15, 133-135, & 144-145), which means that the condition precedent set above is not met. ].
As to dependent claim 15, Oguma-Park further shows:
canceling, by the terminal device, display of the gaze cursor when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is not in the preset region or a ninth duration in which the gaze point leaves the first region or the second region is greater than or equal to sixth duration [The display of Park’s gaze cursor focused on Oguma’s regions would have been reasonably canceled/hidden when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is not in the preset region or duration in which the gaze point leaves the first region or the second region is greater than or equal to sixth duration (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 49, 52, 55, & 73 | Park: ¶¶ 41-42, 146-147].
As to dependent claim 22, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface after displaying the second banner notification on the first interface, when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region comprises: displaying, by the terminal device, the second banner notification on the first interface when the terminal device detects that a duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to a second duration [the second banner notification on the first interface may be displayed when/if the terminal device detects that duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to second duration (Oguma: fig. 4B; ¶ 51 | Park: ¶¶ 133-135)]; and
after the terminal device displays the second banner notification, displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface when the terminal device detects that a duration in which the gaze point is in the second region is greater than or equal to a seventh duration [after the terminal device displays the second banner notification, the second interface may be displayed when/if the terminal device detects that duration in which the gaze point is in the second region is greater than or equal to a given/“seventh” duration (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, & 68 | Park: ¶¶ 133-135)].
As to dependent claim 23, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the seventh duration comprises a third duration and a fifth duration, wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the second region is greater than or equal to the seventh duration comprises: when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the second region is greater than or equal to the third duration, displaying, by the terminal device, a first progress bar at a start position on an outer side of the gaze cursor; and after the terminal device displays the first progress bar at the start position, when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the second region is greater than or equal to the fifth duration, displaying, by the terminal device, the first progress bar at an end position on the outer side of the gaze point, and further displaying the second interface [Oguma-Park shows some preliminary (third and fifth) duration calculations while the expanded/second banner notification is gazed at and some corresponding dynamic functionalities before the second interface is ultimately displayed (see Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, 51-58, & 68). Park also shows that it “may display a mouse cursor in real time in response to the movement of the point of a user's eye gaze. Further, a user interface for controlling the display based on the point of eye gaze may be displayed.” (Park: ¶ 68). However, Oguma-Park shows many scenarios wherein none of the conditions precedent (“when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the second region is greater than or equal to the seventh duration,” “when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the second region is greater than or equal to the third duration,” and “when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the second region is greater than or equal to the fifth duration”) are met, and as such, their corresponding contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.].
As to dependent claim 24, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, the second banner notification on the first interface when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region comprises: displaying, by the terminal device, the second banner notification on the first interface when the first switch is in the on state, the second switch is in an off state, the first banner notification supports expansion, and the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region [the second/expanded banner notification may be displayed on the first interface when/if the functionality to expand the first banner notification when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region (visualized via Park’s switches) is turned on, the functionality to open the first application when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region or a second region (visualized via Park’s switches) is turned off, the first banner notification is allowed to be expanded, and the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region (Oguma: fig. 4B; ¶ 51 | Park: ¶¶ 133-135). As shown above, Park also shows the operability to turn all switches to an off state, which means that the condition precedent set forth above is not met, and as such, its corresponding contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.].
As to dependent claim 25, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region comprises: displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface when the terminal device determines that a preset condition is met and the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region, wherein the preset condition comprises: that the first switch is in an off state, the second switch is in the on state, and the first banner notification supports expansion; or that the first switch is in the on state, the second switch is in the on state, and the first banner notification does not allow expansion; or that the first switch is in the off state, the second switch is in the on state, and the first banner notification does not support expansion [the second interface may be displayed when/if the terminal device determines that the functionality to expand the first banner notification when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region (visualized via Park’s switches) is turned on or off, the functionality to open the first application when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region or a second region (visualized via Park’s switches) is turned on, and before and after the first banner notification is allowed or not to be expanded (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, & 68 | Park: ¶¶ 133-135). Moreover, as shown above, Park also shows the operability to turn all switches to an off state, which means that the condition precedent set forth above is not met, and as such, its corresponding contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.].
As to dependent claim 26, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the preset condition comprises: that the first switch is in an off state, the second switch is in the on state, and the first banner notification supports expansion [As shown above, Park also shows the operability to turn all switches to an off state, which means that the condition precedent set forth above is not met, and as such, its corresponding contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.].
As to dependent claim 27, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the preset condition comprises: that the first switch is in the on state, the second switch is in the on state, and the first banner notification does not allow expansion [As shown above, Park also shows the operability to turn all switches to an off state, which means that the condition precedent set forth above is not met, and as such, its corresponding contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.].
As to dependent claim 28, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the preset condition comprises: that the first switch is in the off state, the second switch is in the on state, and the first banner notification does not support expansion [As shown above, Park also shows the operability to turn all switches to an off state, which means that the condition precedent set forth above is not met, and as such, its corresponding contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.].
As to dependent claim 29, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface when the terminal device detects that the gaze point is in the first region comprises: displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to an eighth duration [the second interface may be displayed when/if the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to eighth duration (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, & 68 | Park: ¶¶ 133-135)].
As to dependent claim 30, Oguma-Park further shows:
wherein the eighth duration comprises a fourth duration and a fifth duration, wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, the second interface when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to the eighth duration comprises: when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to the fourth duration, displaying, by the terminal device, a second progress bar at a start position on an outer side of the gaze cursor; and after the terminal device displays the second progress bar at the start position, when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to the fifth duration, displaying, by the terminal device, the second progress bar at an end position on an outer side of the gaze cursor, and further displaying the second interface [Oguma-Park shows some preliminary (fourth and fifth) duration calculations while the first region is gazed at and some corresponding dynamic functionalities before the second interface is ultimately displayed (see Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, 51-58, & 68). Park also shows that it “may display a mouse cursor in real time in response to the movement of the point of a user's eye gaze. Further, a user interface for controlling the display based on the point of eye gaze may be displayed.” (Park: ¶ 68). However, Oguma-Park shows many scenarios wherein none of the conditions precedent (“when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to the eighth duration,” “when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to the fourth duration,” and “when the terminal device detects that the duration in which the gaze point is in the first region is greater than or equal to the fifth duration”) are met, and as such, their corresponding contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.].
As to dependent claim 31, Oguma-Park further shows:
when the terminal device determines that a preset function is not enabled and receives a third banner notification for a first time, displaying, by the terminal device, the third interface [a third interface may be displayed when/if the terminal device determines that a preset function is not enabled and the third banner notification is received for a first time (Oguma: ¶¶ 43, 47, & 51)].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claims 20 and 21 now explicitly recite displaying a first interface, wherein the first interface comprises a first banner notification, the first banner notification is in a first region of a display of the electronic device, and the first banner notification is a banner notification initiated by a first application; detecting that a gaze point is in a preset region; displaying a gaze cursor on the first interface in response to detecting that the gaze point is in the preset region, wherein the preset region comprises the first region, the preset region is 1/3 of the display, and the gaze cursor indicates a position of the gaze point on the display; and displaying a second banner notification on the first interface when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region, wherein the second banner notification is the first banner notification that is expanded, and message content in the second banner notification comprises more text of a corresponding message than message content in the first banner notification; or displaying a second interface when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region, wherein the second interface is a displayed interface of the first application that is displayed in response to detecting that the gaze point is in the first region, and the second interface comprises the message content in the second banner notification; wherein a first switch and a second switch are displayed in a third interface of the electronic device, the first switch is configured to: when the first switch is in an on state, for the first banner notification that supports expansion, expand the message content of the first banner notification when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region, wherein the second switch is configured to: when the second switch is in the on state, for the first banner notification that supports expansion and the first banner does not support expansion, open the first application when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region or a second region, and the second region is a region in which the second banner notification is located. These concepts, when combined, do not appear to be taught or suggested by the prior art of record. Therefore, independent claims 20 and 21 are deemed allowable. Dependent claim 32 is thus also deemed allowable by virtue of depending on parent claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“The Examiner relies on Oguma for the banner-related limitations and on Park ( 68) for displaying a cursor in response to eye gaze. See Office Action at 12-17. The cited portion of Park describes displaying a mouse cursor on a screen in response to the movement of the point of a user's eye gaze and displaying a user interface for controlling the display based on the point of eye gaze. Park, 68. Park does not describe displaying its cursor in response to detecting that a gaze point is in a preset region that comprises a first region in which a banner notification is located, nor does Park describe any preset region for detecting a gaze point that is "1/3 of the display." Rather, in Park, when enabled the cursor moves continuously in real time to follow the gaze across the entire screen (Park, 68, 91, 126), and there is no first region containing a notification banner, and accordingly no preset region "compris[ing] the first region" as recited. Oguma likewise does not cure this deficiency. Oguma detects whether a line-of-sight position is within the display area of a banner (Oguma, 50, 305), but Oguma does not display a gaze cursor at all, and does not describe a preset region defined as "1/3 of the display" within which a gaze cursor is displayed. Neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the recited features of "detecting that a gaze point is in a preset region;" and "displaying ... a gaze cursor on the first interface in response to the terminal device detecting that the gaze point is in the preset region, wherein the preset region comprises the first region, the preset region is 1/3 of the display, and the gaze cursor indicates the position of the gaze point on the display." (Emphasis added)”
The Office respectfully disagrees with their rationale. In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Oguma already taught everything except the final “gaze cursor” itself. For example, Oguma shows detecting, by the terminal device, that a gaze point is in a preset region (like, for example, the upper 1/3 region of the screen where banner notifications are displayed | Oguma: fig. 4B; ¶¶ 43, 47, 51, & 68). See also how MPEP § 2144.05(I) supports the Oguma reference teaching the claimed “1/3” aspect when it states that claimed ranges that “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” are sufficient for purposes of prior art analysis. So even if Oguma did not teach wherein the preset region is the upper 1/3 portion of the screen where banner notifications are displayed (which it does, as evidenced at least in figs. 4A-4D), Oguma also shows a whole display screen and detecting gaze in any region of the display region, meaning that the claimed “1/3 of the display” also overlaps Oguma’s "any region." Park was relied upon merely for the part of displaying a gaze cursor in correspondence with a gaze point (Park: ¶ 68).
“The cited references also do not teach or suggest a second banner notification in which "message content . . . comprises more text of a corresponding message than message content in the first banner notification."”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Oguma explicitly shows message content comprising more text of a corresponding message in an expanded version than message content in the first/unexpanded banner notification (compare, for example, the unexpanded banner notification version in Oguma: fig. 4A versus the expanded banner notification version in Oguma: fig. 4B, and their corresponding explanatory paragraphs).
“The cited references do not teach or suggest the features of "wherein a first switch and a second switch are displayed in a third interface of the terminal device, the first switch is configured to: when the first switch is in an on state, for the first banner notification that supports expansion, expand the message content of the first banner notification when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region, wherein the second switch is configured to: when the second switch is in the on state, for the first banner notification that supports expansion and the first banner notification that does not support expansion, open the first application when it is detected that the gaze point is in the first region or a second region, and the second region is a region in which the second banner notification is located."”
The Office respectfully disagrees. As indicated both in the previous Office Action and the current action herein, 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. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on the “when” condition being true (like when a condition happens, do something (but that something does not need to happen if the triggering condition does not occur)) significantly broaden the claims since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03. In this case, Park shows the operability to configure any visible switch for any user-desired gaze-related functionality, as well as the possibility to have both switches in an off state (Park: ¶¶ 13-15, 133-135, & 144-145). Having both switches in an off state means that neither of the conditions precedent set forth above (“when the first switch is in an on state” and “when the second switch is in the on state”) are met, and as such their respective contingent functionalities are not required for purposes of prior art analysis.
Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights