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 .
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 .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on August 7, 2024, and Drawings filed on August 7, 2024.
2. Claims 1–20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent claims.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 7, applicant claims the limitation wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the selection of the indication of the application by the user, causing to be displayed a carousel of applications on the display, the carousel of applications comprising a focus area with the application within the focus area and the carousel of applications comprising a related application, the related application selectable by the user.
First, it is unclear whether the application launches or not based on the user selection. It is unclear whether the carousel is displayed with the application or whether the selection of the application only launches the carousel. It is unclear whether the carousel relates to the application or not and how selection of the application relates to the carousel. Secondly it is unclear what constitutes a related application. It is unclear what the application is related to, whether it is related to the application or something else. For the purpose of a compact prosecution, it is interpreted that the application is an application that launches the carousel and the related application is related to the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterson, Pub. No.: 20170357442 A1.
With regard to claim 1:
Peterson discloses a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (See paragraph 131 for processor and memory), configure the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: accessing a first content item (See fig. 5C for first item 230, see paragraph 86 The message bubble 230 shows the happy face sketch that was created by the plug-in (or extension app); in the case of the extension app, this created content was communicated from the extension app through the IPC frame work to the messaging app ); determining an application used to generate the first content item (see paragraph 86 This content was created by the extension app executing on communication device 200 which provided the happy face content to the messaging app executing on communication device 200 which in turn transmitted that content through a messaging service (e.g., a set of messaging servers, such as the messaging servers 51 shown in FIG. 2) to the messaging app executing on the communication device 250 which in turn presented the content in the message bubble 253.); causing to be displayed on a display of the computing device, an indication of the first content item and an indication of the application (See paragraph 86 and Fig. 5D In this embodiment, the corresponding extension app on the receiving device can be launched by the user's selection of the message bubble containing the content created by the remote extension app. So the icon 230 is the indication of the application that can be launched by selecting it ); and in response to a selection of the indication of the application by a user, running the application to generate a second content item (See fig. 5E and 5F wherein if the user does select that content by, for example, touching or otherwise selecting the message bubble 253, then the extension app that corresponds to the remote extension app will be launched if installed on the communication device 250. The result is shown in FIG. 5E in which the user interface of the extension app has occupied the space in which the on-screen keyboard 255 was previously displayed and shows the happy face drawing within the canvas 215 allowing the user of the communication device 250 to alter or otherwise modify that sketch and perhaps send it back to the other user in the chat session or conversation. ).
With regard to claims 2 and 12 and 17:
Peterson discloses The computing device of claim 1, wherein the first content item is received from a sender to the user (See fig. 5C for first item 230, see paragraph 86 The message bubble 230 shows the happy face sketch that was created by the plug-in (or extension app); in the case of the extension app, this created content was communicated from the extension app through the IPC frame work to the messaging app ) and the second content item in response to the first content item (See fig. 5E and 5F wherein if the user does select that content by, for example, touching or otherwise selecting the message bubble 253, then the extension app that corresponds to the remote extension app will be launched if installed on the communication device 250. The result is shown in FIG. 5E in which the user interface of the extension app has occupied the space in which the on-screen keyboard 255 was previously displayed and shows the happy face drawing within the canvas 215 allowing the user of the communication device 250 to alter or otherwise modify that sketch and perhaps send it back to the other user in the chat session or conversation. ).
With regard to claims 3 and 13 and 18:
Peterson discloses the computing device of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a selection to send the second content item, sending the second content item to the sender (See fig. 5E and 5F wherein if the user does select that content by, for example, touching or otherwise selecting the message bubble 253, then the extension app that corresponds to the remote extension app will be launched if installed on the communication device 250. The result is shown in FIG. 5E in which the user interface of the extension app has occupied the space in which the on-screen keyboard 255 was previously displayed and shows the happy face drawing within the canvas 215 allowing the user of the communication device 250 to alter or otherwise modify that sketch and perhaps send it back to the other user in the chat session or conversation. ).
With regard to claim 6:
Peterson discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the indication of the application is an icon representing the application (See fig. 5E and 5F wherein if the user does select that content by, for example, touching or otherwise selecting the message bubble 253 which is an icon, then the extension app that corresponds to the remote extension app will be launched if installed on the communication device 250.)..
With regard to claim 10:
Peterson discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the computing device is one of: a mobile device, an augmented reality (AR) wearable device, a mixed reality (MR) wearable device, an extended reality (XR), or a virtual reality (VR) wearable device (see fig. 1 and paragraph 17 wherein the device is a mobile device).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
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) 4, 5, 14, 15, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view of Wilensky, Pub. No.: 20200410730.
With regard to claims 4, 14, 19:
Peterson does not disclose the aspect wherein the operations further comprise: determining an augmentation added to the first content item; causing to be displayed on the display an indication of the augmentation; and in response to a selection of the indication of the augmentation by the user, adding the augmentation to the second content item.
However Wilensky discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining an augmentation added to the first content item (See paragraph 118 wherein one or more modified images are obtained to serve as a basis for a modification style (block 702). In accordance with the principles discussed herein, each of the modified images includes image content depicting a scene before modification and also includes modification parameters describing the modification to the image content to produce the modified image. ); causing to be displayed on the display an indication of the augmentation (See paragraph 119 wherein Image representations of the image content of the one or more modified images are generated (block 704). In accordance with the principles discussed herein, an image representation comprises reduced information representative of the image content rather than a pixel-by-pixel entirety of the image content.); and in response to a selection of the indication of the augmentation by the user, adding the augmentation to the second content item (see paragraph 124 wherein A selection of a modification style is received to apply the modification style to the input image (block 804). In accordance with the principles discussed herein, the modification style corresponds to style data, which includes one or more modification memories of modified images that have been selected to serve as a basis for the modification style.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Wilensky to Peterson so the user can easily apply the same modification to a second item based on a determined modification to the first item, saving time and effort.
With regard to claims 5 and 15 and 20:
Peterson and Wilensky disclose the computing device of claim 4, wherein the augmentation is one of: an image, an animation, a geolocation, or an image processing function (Wilensky See paragraph 118 wherein one or more modified images are obtained to serve as a basis for a modification style (block 702). In accordance with the principles discussed herein, each of the modified images includes image content depicting a scene before modification and also includes modification parameters describing the modification to the image content to produce the modified image.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Wilensky to Peterson so the user can easily apply the same modification to a second image based on a determined modification to the first image, saving time and effort.
Claims 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view off Agnetta, Patent No.: 11016628.
With regard to claim 7:
Peterson does not disclose The computing device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the selection of the indication of the application by the user, causing to be displayed a carousel of applications on the display, the carousel of applications comprising a focus area with the application within the focus area and the carousel of applications comprising a related application, the related application selectable by the user.
However Agnetta discloses the aspect wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the selection of the indication of the application by the user, causing to be displayed a carousel of applications on the display (See paragraph 132 column 17 line 15 to line 26 as the user selects the home button 504, the device 100 toggles between displaying the home screen (e.g., with the carousel) and the application grid 512. Application icons may appear in the home carousel 508, the application grid 512, or both.), the carousel of applications comprising a focus area with the application within the focus area and the carousel of applications comprising a related application (see fig. 11 wherein the related application is displayed in the middle as the focus area), the related application selectable by the user (see paragraph 153 column 20 line 53 to line 61 and fig. 11D wherein the related application is selectable through scrolling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Agnetta to Peterson so the user can easily select from multiple applications to modify the item giving the user more choices to select from for the best result.
With regard to claim 8:
Peterson and Agnetta disclose the computing device of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to a selection of the related application by the user, running the related application to generate a third content item (Agnetta see fig. 11A wherein the related application could an email application which allows the user to generate emails). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Agnetta to Peterson so the user can easily select from multiple applications to modify the item giving the user more choices to select from for the best result.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson, in view off Agnetta, and further in view of Wilensky, Pub. No.: 20200410730.
With regard to claim 9:
Peterson and Agnetta do not disclose the aspect wherein the operations further comprise: determining an augmentation added to the first content item; causing to be displayed on the display an indication of the augmentation; and in response to a selection of the indication of the augmentation by the user, adding the augmentation to the third content item.
However Wilensky discloses the aspect of determining an augmentation added to the first content item (See paragraph 118 wherein one or more modified images are obtained to serve as a basis for a modification style (block 702). In accordance with the principles discussed herein, each of the modified images includes image content depicting a scene before modification and also includes modification parameters describing the modification to the image content to produce the modified image. ); causing to be displayed on the display an indication of the augmentation (See paragraph 119 wherein Image representations of the image content of the one or more modified images are generated (block 704). In accordance with the principles discussed herein, an image representation comprises reduced information representative of the image content rather than a pixel-by-pixel entirety of the image content.); and in response to a selection of the indication of the augmentation by the user, adding the augmentation to the third content item (see paragraph 124 wherein A selection of a modification style is received to apply the modification style to the input image (block 804). In accordance with the principles discussed herein, the modification style corresponds to style data, which includes one or more modification memories of modified images that have been selected to serve as a basis for the modification style.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Wilensky to Peterson and Agnetta so the user can easily apply the same modification to a second item based on a determined modification to the first item, save time and effort.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahn, Pub. No.: 20230221832 A1, discloses a wearable device includes a display module and at least one processor configured to control the display module to allow an execution screen of a first application to be shown as a virtual object according to a first type, detect a first user input for executing a second application.
Grey, Patent. No.: US 9798443 B1: discloses a set of application icons can be displayed on an interface (e.g., a home screen) of a computing device. The icons can include a center icon and at least one of a subset of application icons to the left or to the right of the center application icon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights