DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaver et al. (US 2013/0328888) in view of Lou et al. (US 2016/0062614).
Regarding claim 1, Beaver teaches/suggests: A method comprising:
detecting a two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition”);
responsive to detecting said
wherein animating the multiple different display areas responsive to detecting said
animating a first display area of the multiple different display areas, wherein animating the first display area comprises displaying at least a first portion of the first display area that was not displayed prior to detecting the
animating a second display area of the multiple different display areas, wherein animating the second display area comprises displaying at least a second portion of the second display area that was not displayed prior to detecting the
Beaver does not teach/suggest a swipe input. Lou, however, teaches/suggests a swipe input (Lou [0037] “If such a swiping gesture has been detected, the control device 3 generates graphics data for an animation”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the swiping gesture of Lou) for another (the spreading gesture of Beaver) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely to initiate the animation.
Regarding claim 2, Beaver as modified by Lou teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein:
animating the first display area on the screen of the electronic device includes causing the first display area to travel a first distance (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” [Animating the overlapped photograph to the grid arrangement meets the first distance.]); and
animating the second display area on the screen of the electronic device includes causing the second display area to travel a second distance different from the first distance (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” [Animating the another overlapped photograph to the grid arrangement meets the second distance.]).
Regarding claim 3, Beaver as modified by Lou teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein:
animating the first display area on the screen of the electronic device includes causing the first display area to travel at a first velocity (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” [Animating the overlapped photograph to the grid arrangement meets the first velocity.]); and
animating the second display area on the screen of the electronic device includes causing the second display area to travel at a second velocity (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” [Animating the another overlapped photograph to the grid arrangement meets the second velocity.]).
Beaver and Lou are silent regarding at a second velocity different from the first velocity. However, the concept and advantages of the different velocities are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious that the photographs of Beaver as modified by Lou travel at different velocities for special effects.
Regarding claim 4, Beaver as modified by Lou teaches/suggests: The method of claim 3, further comprising:
prior to detecting the swipe input, concurrently displaying a third portion of the first display area and a fourth portion of the second display area (Beaver [0042] “the user may be able to view a collection of photographs or a photo album as a cluster of overlapping photographs as illustrated in FIG. 8, or as a random arrangement of complete and partially overlapping photographs as illustrated in FIG. 9” [The overlapped photograph meets the third portion; the another overlapped photograph meets the fourth portion.]);
wherein the swipe input traverses both the third portion of the first display area and the fourth portion of the second display area (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” Lou [0037] “If such a swiping gesture has been detected, the control device 3 generates graphics data for an animation”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Beaver as modified by Lou teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein:
animating the first display area comprises causing the first display area to follow a first predetermined trajectory (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” [Animating the overlapped photograph to the grid arrangement meets the first predetermined trajectory.]); and
animating the second display area comprises causing the second display area to follow a second predetermined trajectory that has a relationship to the first predetermined trajectory (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” [Animating the another overlapped photograph to the grid arrangement meets the second predetermined trajectory.]).
Claims 8-12 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1-5, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Beaver as modified by Lou further teaches/suggests a non-transitory machine readable medium storing sets of instructions (Beaver Fig. 1: memory 20).
Claims 15-19 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1-5, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Beaver as modified by Lou further teaches/suggests at least one processing unit; and a non-transitory machine readable medium storing sets of instructions (Beaver Fig. 1: processor 18 and memory 20).
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaver et al. (US 2013/0328888) in view of Lou et al. (US 2016/0062614) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0079744).
Regarding claim 6, Beaver as modified by Lou does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 5, further comprising:
initiating a first animation of the first display area before animating the second display area;
determining that an attribute of the first display area satisfies a predetermined condition; and
responsive to determining that the attribute of the first display area satisfies the predetermined condition: initiating a second animation of the second display area.
Chen, however, teaches/suggests:
initiating a first animation of the first display area before animating the second display area (Chen [0006] “data indicating whether the objects should be animated sequentially or concurrently”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photographs of Beaver as modified by Lou to be animated sequentially as taught/suggested by Chen as an option. As such, Beaver as modified by Lou and Chen teaches/suggests:
determining that an attribute of the first display area satisfies a predetermined condition (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” Chen [0006] “data indicating whether the objects should be animated sequentially or concurrently” [The sequential animation in view of Beaver and Chen meets the predetermined condition.]); and
responsive to determining that the attribute of the first display area satisfies the predetermined condition: initiating a second animation of the second display area (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” Chen [0006] “data indicating whether the objects should be animated sequentially or concurrently”).
Regarding claim 7, Beaver as modified by Lou and Chen teaches/suggests: The method of claim 6, wherein determining that the attribute of the first display area satisfies the predetermined condition comprises determining that the first display area has travelled to a predetermined location in the first predetermined trajectory (Beaver [0078] “if the user wishes to view the cluster of photographs, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in a grid arrangement, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the user may touch the cluster photographs with two fingers and perform a multi-touch spreading gesture to initiate the transition” Chen [0006] “data indicating whether the objects should be animated sequentially or concurrently”). The sequential animation in view of Beaver and Chen meets the predetermined location. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated herein.
Claims 13 and 14 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 6 and 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim 20 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 9965136 – sliding animation
US 2017/0300200 – scaling animation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights