CTFR 18/807,510 CTFR 87860 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Applicant's amendments filed on 21 May 2026 have been entered. Claims 21, 31, and 40 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 21-40 are still pending in this application, with claims 21, 31, and 40 being independent. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, with respect to claim 21, that “ Veiga does not disclose "detecting user attention directed to the second software application instance being displayed on the secondary DUI screen at the virtual location" as recited in the presently amended claims. Veiga discloses, at column 17, lines 59-61 "determining that the current user focus 58 has changed from the first display device to the second display device". In other words, Veiga does not disclose detecting user attention directed to a software application being displayed on a DUI screen at a virtual location, but rather detecting user focus on a physical display device. ” However, Examiner notes that nothing in the claims mandates that a “ virtual location ” can not be displayed on the physical device. Thus, Examiner maintains that Veiga’s teachings indeed read on the claimed limitations. Applicant further argues that “ Veiga also does not disclose "swapping the primary DUI screen and the secondary DUI screen, based on detection of the user attention being directed to the second software application instance displayed on the secondary DUI screen at the virtual location, to cause the GUI information for the second software application instance to be displayed on the primary DUI screen on the 2D display device and to cause the GUI information for the first software application instance to be displayed on the secondary DUI screen on the AR display device" as recited in the present claims. At column 23, lines 7-30, Veiga discloses that, after determining that the current user focus has changed from the first display device to the second display device, the processor may be configured to perform a predetermined action such as "to reduce a power usage of a display device that does not have the current user focus" (column 23, lines 20-21), "to display content on the first display device that has the current user focus" (column 23, lines 23-24), or "switch display of the content from the first display device to the second display device (column 23, lines 28-29), among other possible predetermined actions listed in column 23. Notably, none of the predetermined actions involve swapping primary and secondary DUI screens between display on a 2D display device and an AR display device. ” Examiner notes that this argument hinges on the same presumption that said “ virtual location ” cannot be displayed on the physical device. Thus, Examiner maintains that Veiga’s teachings indeed read on the claimed limitations for at least these reasons and the mappings in the instant Office Action. For the remaining claims, Applicant argues their allowance for the reasons above or dependence to one of the independent claims. It follows that all remaining rejections are maintained for at least the above reasons . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 21 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 10, and 12 and 18, respectively , of U.S. Patent No. 12,093,704 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations in the aforementioned claims of the instant application are met by those in said patent . This will be described in reference to the table below; emphasis has been added in bold to the corresponding elements. Instant Application 18/807510 Patent 12,093,704 Claim 21: A method comprising: displaying, on a two-dimensional (2D) display device , a primary distributed user interface (DUI) screen including graphical user interface (GUI) informati o n of a first software application instance; displaying, on an augmented reality (AR) display device, a secondary DUI screen including GUI information of a second software application instance, the secondary DUI screen being displayed at a secondary DUI screen virtual location relative to a physical location of the 2D display device; detecting user attention directed to the second software application instance being displayed on the secondary DUI screen at the virtual location ; and swapping the primary DUI screen and the secondary DUI screen , based on detection of the user attention being directed to the second software application instance displayed on the secondary DUI screen at the virtual location, to displaying cause the GUI information for the second software application instance to be displayed on the primary DUI screen on the 2D display device and to display cause the GUI information for the first software application instance to be displayed on the secondary DUI screen on the AR display device . Claim 1: A method for displaying a distributed user interface (DUI) , comprising : a display device configured to superimpose images of visual virtual content over a real-world view of a user to create a visual effect of the augmented reality environment being present in a real world, wherein the real-world view of the user is an outlook of the real world from the point of view of the user; obtaining graphical user interface (GUI) information of a software application comprising: GUI element information for each of a plurality of GUI elements of the software application; and GUI layout information for arranging the plurality of GUI elements for presentation as a GUI screen on a two-dimensional (2D) display , the GUI layout information comprising a predetermined semantic structure that defines relationships among the plurality of GUI elements, the predetermined semantic structure being used to define a spatial layout of the plurality of GUI elements when presented on the 2D display, the predetermined semantic structure being defined by the software application; processing the GUI layout information to identify, based at least in part on the semantic structure, a first subset of the plurality of GUI elements for display on a primary DUI screen and a second subset of the plurality of GUI elements for display on a secondary DUI screen; displaying a primary DUI screen on a 2D display device, the primary DUI screen including the GUI element information of the first subset of the plurality of GUI elements; obtaining 2D display device location information indicating a physical location of the 2D display device; determining DUI layout information indicating a fixed spatial relationship between the physical location of the 2D display device for displaying the first subset of the plurality of GUI elements and a secondary DUI screen virtual location for displaying the second subset of the plurality of GUI elements, the DUI layout information being determined by: generating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) based on the predetermined semantic structure of the GUI layout information, wherein: each vertex of the DAG corresponding to a GUI module having one or more GUI elements of the plurality of GUI elements; and each edge of the DAG represents a spatial dependency between two GUI modules corresponding to two vertices connected by the edge; topologically sorting the vertices of the DAG based on the spatial dependencies of the DAG to generate a sorted order of the vertices; and generating the fixed spatial relationship based on the sorted order of the vertices; wherein the fixed spatial relationship of the DUI layout information preserves the predetermined semantic structure defining relationships between the first subset and the second subset of the plurality of GUI elements; determining the secondary DUI screen virtual location based on the physical location of the 2D display device and the fixed spatial relationship; and displaying a view of an augmented reality (AR) environment on an AR display device, the AR environment including a secondary DUI screen located at the determined secondary DUI screen virtual location. Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein: the GUI information comprises: GUI information for a first software application instance; and GUI information for a second software application instance; the primary DUI screen comprises GUI information for the first software application instance; the secondary DUI screen comprises the GUI information for the second software application instance; and the method further comprises: processing user input information to detect user attention directed to the second software application instance ; and swapping the GUI information for the first software application instance on the primary DUI screen with the GUI information for the second software application on the secondary DUI screen, resulting in the primary DUI screen presenting the second software application instance and the secondary DUI screen presenting the first software application instance . As can be seen in the above table, the method claim, and substantially similar system claim 31, of this application 18/807510 embody and perform the functions as presented in the method claims 1 and 10 and substantially similar system claims 12 and 18, respectively, of patent 12,093,704 . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming the Double Patenting rejections. Claim 26 would be allowable over the prior art of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose or suggest the method of claim 25, further comprising: wherein the respective fixed spatial relationships are determined by: generating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) based on the predetermined semantic structure of the first GUI layout information, wherein: each vertex of the DAG corresponding to a GUI module having one or more GUI elements of the first plurality of GUI elements; and each edge of the DAG represents a spatial dependency between two GUI modules corresponding to two vertices connected by the edge; topologically sorting the vertices of the DAG based on the spatial dependencies of the DAG to generate a sorted order of the vertices; and generating the one or more fixed spatial relationships based on the sorted order of the vertices, as presented in the environment of the remaining limitations of claim 26. It is noted that the closest prior art, Zhu, shows the limitations of claim 25, from which claim 26 depends. However, Zhu fails to disclose or suggest generating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) based on the predetermined semantic structure of the first GUI layout information, wherein: each vertex of the DAG corresponding to a GUI module having one or more GUI elements of the first plurality of GUI elements; and each edge of the DAG represents a spatial dependency between two GUI modules corresponding to two vertices connected by the edge; topologically sorting the vertices of the DAG based on the spatial dependencies of the DAG to generate a sorted order of the vertices; and generating the one or more fixed spatial relationships based on the sorted order of the vertices. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-25 and 27-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (NPL: BISHARE: Exploring Bidirectional Interactions Between Smartphones and Head-Mounted Augmented Reality), hereinafter Zhu, in view of Veiga et al. (US Patent 10331190), hereinafter Veiga . Regarding claim 21, Zhu discloses a method comprising: displaying, on a two-dimensional (2D) display device, a primary distributed user interface (DUI) screen including graphical user interface (GUI) information of a first software application instance (Fig. 3; Page 4: Most previous research developed joint-interaction between mobile devices and HMDs for either mobile-centric [23, 42, 51] or HMD-centric [3, 40, 55] interactions. Given the devices’ contrasting capabilities, we believe there is an open opportunity to develop bidirectional frameworks which can support both 2D and spatial HMD centric tasks, as well as supporting a continuous transition between these two contexts of use ; Page 5: Related to distributed input, distributed UI represents the concept of placing visual interactive widgets on one platform that are used to manipulate content or interactions on the other platform [10]. For example, the HMD can provide extra UI components surrounding the mobile device, to support a full viewing experience for when using mobile applications [42] (D2P). Conversely, the phone can be used to provide detailed UI elements for manipulating spatial objects…use of free-hand gestures, local touch events, and controller-based input events can all be combined to create new forms of cross-platform gestures that incorporate both input platforms [16]. For example, to support content transfer in a phone-centric context (D4P), content on the phone can be dragged using a touch operation, and once reaching the edge, the movement can continue as a freehand pinch gesture [38] (D5P). In a HMD-centric setting, a user could combine spatial movements of the phone itself, with 2D touchscreen gestures on the phone, to perform manipulations of spatial content ); displaying, on an augmented reality (AR) display device, a secondary DUI screen including GUI information of a second software application instance, the secondary DUI screen being displayed at a secondary DUI screen virtual location relative to a physical location of the 2D display device (Fig. 2; Page 4: Most previous research developed joint-interaction between mobile devices and HMDs for either mobile-centric [23, 42, 51] or HMD-centric [3, 40, 55] interactions. Given the devices’ contrasting capabilities, we believe there is an open opportunity to develop bidirectional frameworks which can support both 2D and spatial HMD centric tasks, as well as supporting a continuous transition between these two contexts of use ; Page 5: Related to distributed input, distributed UI represents the concept of placing visual interactive widgets on one platform that are used to manipulate content or interactions on the other platform [10]. For example, the HMD can provide extra UI components surrounding the mobile device, to support a full viewing experience for when using mobile applications…Combining a smartphone with an ARHMD gives rise to a novel continuum of digital display spaces. This ranges from fully 2D (inherent to mobile devices), to fully spatial (inherent to ARHMDs). Furthermore, extensive prior research has shown the benefits of leveraging the space immediately surrounding an interactive device [13, 15, 26, 63]. To support continuous transitions along this continuum [38, 51, 52, 54, 55], we propose three semantically meaningful spaces that input, output, and content can transition between: within the phone, around the phone and within the spatial environment (Figure 2)…Based on the above described principles, and our survey of the prior literature, we have identified six major categories of joint interactions between smartphones and ARHMDs. By considering each of these interactions through the lens of both phone-centric (P) and HMD-centric (H) tasks, we form BISHARE (Bidirectional Interactions between Smartphones and Head-Mounted Augmented Reality), a novel 2 x 6 bidirectional design space (Figure 3) ); While Zhu teaches detecting user attention (Page 3: inherent benefit of ARHMDs is that they can track the position and orientation of the user’s head. This offers a valuable input channel, as the user’s area of attention can be inferred ), Zhu does not explicitly disclose detecting user attention directed to the second software application instance being displayed on the secondary DUI screen at the virtual location; and swapping the primary DUI screen and the secondary DUI screen, based on detection of the user attention being directed to the second software application instance displayed on the secondary DUI screen at the virtual location, to cause the GUI information for the second software application instance to be displayed on the primary DUI screen on the 2D display device and to cause the GUI information for the first software application instance to be displayed on the secondary DUI screen on the AR display device. However, Veiga teaches distributed processing on a distributed user interface (Fig. 2A; Column 2; Column 21), further comprising detecting user attention directed to the second software application instance being displayed on the secondary DUI screen at the virtual location (Column 17, line 58-Column 18, line 3: Proceeding from step 808 to step 810, method 800 may include determining that the current user focus 58 has changed from the first display device to the second display device based on at least detecting the signature gesture input. In one example, the signature gesture input is the flick gesture input 64 which results in the mobile computing device 12 being flipped to an opposite side. Thus, if the first display device had the current user focus, after the flick gesture input, the first display device will now be facing away from the user while the second display device will now be facing toward the user. Thus, the current user focus 58 will switch from the first display device to the second display device ); and swapping the primary DUI screen and the secondary DUI screen, based on detection of the user attention being directed to the second software application instance displayed on the secondary DUI screen at the virtual location, to cause the GUI information for the second software application instance to be displayed on the primary DUI screen on the 2D display device and to cause the GUI information for the first software application instance to be displayed on the secondary DUI screen on the AR display device (Column 23, lines 7-30: determine a current user focus indicating that a first display device of the pair of display devices is being viewed by the user, and that a second display device of the pair of display devices is not being viewed by the user, detect a signature gesture input based on accelerometer data received via the accelerometer detecting that the mobile computing device has been rotated more than a threshold degree, determine that the current user focus has changed from the first display device to the second display device based on at least detecting the signature gesture input, and perform a predetermined action based on the current user focus. In this aspect, additionally or alternatively, to perform the predetermined action, the processor may be further configured to reduce a power usage of a display device that does not have the current user focus. In this aspect, additionally or alternatively, the processor may be further configured to display content on the first display device that has the current user focus, and wherein to perform the predetermined action, the processor may be further configured to, based on at least determining that the current user focus has changed from the first display device to the second display device, switch display of the content from the first display device to the second display device ). Veiga teaches that this will allow for device to conserve battery power and thus operate more efficiently without impacting the user experience (Column 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu with the features of above as taught by Veiga so as to operate more efficiently without impacting the user experience as presented by Veiga. Regarding claim 22, Zhu, in view of Veiga teaches the method of claim 21, Zhu discloses wherein the GUI information of the first software application includes first GUI element information for a first plurality of GUI elements of the first software application and includes first GUI layout information including a first semantic structure that defines relationships among the first plurality of GUI elements, wherein displaying the primary DUI screen further comprises: displaying, on the AR display device, one or more GUI elements of the first plurality of GUI elements on respective one or more additional DUI screens at respective one or more additional virtual locations relative to the physical location of the 2D display device, wherein the one or more additional virtual locations are determined to preserve the first semantic structure defining relationships among the first plurality of GUI elements (Page 2: mobile-centric joint interactions is seen with the Multifi system [23] which uses an ARHMD to enhance smartwatch or smartphone interactions, providing the users with a dynamically aligned head’s up display that can be used for content previews, extended screens and interactive widgets. MultiFi is also one of the few systems that also demonstrates a set of HMD-centric interactions, where the phone can also be used as input for the HMD. Normand and McGuffin also propose a set of mobile-centric interactions, where the HMD extends the display space of a phone, and use the term VESAD to refer to a virtually extended screen-aligned display [42]. Gluey uses a headworn display to support input and data transitions in distributed display environments [51]. For example, a user can move content from their desktop monitor to a nearby tablet, by shifting their view to the tablet while dragging content on the HMD with the mouse ; Page 5: we can synthesize prior work, comparing their coverage of each element of the design space (Table 2). Notably, our analysis of the prior work indicates that each prior system typically focuses on only one direction of the relationship between the two interactive platforms. The main exception is MultiFi, which considers the bidirectional relationship between a headmounted display and mobile devices [23]. However, their implementation focused on 2D tasks and content, and thus did not exploit the unique realm of spatial 3D tasks and interactions that the combination of devices affords ; Table 1; Page 2: cross-device computing is often used to extend the input and output areas of interactive devices [7, 8, 60]. Also related, a number of cross-device platforms have used a mobile phone to provide spatial input for a secondary display, like desktop ; Page 5: we can synthesize prior work, comparing their coverage of each element of the design space (Table 2). Notably, our analysis of the prior work indicates that each prior system typically focuses on only one direction of the relationship between the two interactive platforms. The main exception is MultiFi, which considers the bidirectional relationship between a headmounted display and mobile devices [23]. However, their implementation focused on 2D tasks and content, and thus did not exploit the unique realm of spatial 3D tasks and interactions that the combination of devices affords ; Page 8: Users can toggle the selection of multiple objects by tapping them (D2H). Once selected, groups of objects can be repositioned, aligned, or deleted. The user can also lock/unlock groups of objects with a lock icon. Once locked, subsequent 3D movement of the phone repositions them as a group (D1H). Icons are provided to align multiple objects to the left, right, top, bottom, front and back. Additionally, the user can tap or swipe with the finger along the physical edges of the phone to perform alignment or distribution in the corresponding direction ). Regarding claim 23, Zhu, in view of Veiga teaches the method of claim 22, Veiga discloses wherein the first software application instance and the second software application instance are instances of a same software application, and wherein the one or more GUI elements continue to be displayed on the respective one or more additional DUI screens after the swapping (Column 23, lines 7-30: determine a current user focus indicating that a first display device of the pair of display devices is being viewed by the user, and that a second display device of the pair of display devices is not being viewed by the user, detect a signature gesture input based on accelerometer data received via the accelerometer detecting that the mobile computing device has been rotated more than a threshold degree, determine that the current user focus has changed from the first display device to the second display device based on at least detecting the signature gesture input, and perform a predetermined action based on the current user focus. In this aspect, additionally or alternatively, to perform the predetermined action, the processor may be further configured to reduce a power usage of a display device that does not have the current user focus. In this aspect, additionally or alternatively, the processor may be further configured to display content on the first display device that has the current user focus, and wherein to perform the predetermined action, the processor may be further configured to, based on at least determining that the current user focus has changed from the first display device to the second display device, switch display of the content from the first display device to the second display device ). Regarding claim 24, Zhu, in view of Veiga teaches the method of claim 22, Zhu discloses wherein the GUI information of the second software application includes second GUI element information for a second plurality of GUI elements of the second software application and includes second GUI layout information including a second semantic structure that defines relationships among the second plurality of GUI elements, wherein the swapping comprises: displaying, on the AR display device, one or more GUI elements of the second plurality of GUI elements of the second software application on further respective one or more additional DUI screens at further respective one or more additional virtual locations relative to the physical location of the 2D display device, wherein the further respective one or more additional virtual locations are determined to preserve the second semantic structure defining relationships among the second plurality of GUI (Table 1; Page 2: cross-device computing is often used to extend the input and output areas of interactive devices [7, 8, 60]. Also related, a number of cross-device platforms have used a mobile phone to provide spatial input for a secondary display, like desktop ; Page 5: we can synthesize prior work, comparing their coverage of each element of the design space (Table 2). Notably, our analysis of the prior work indicates that each prior system typically focuses on only one direction of the relationship between the two interactive platforms. The main exception is MultiFi, which considers the bidirectional relationship between a headmounted display and mobile devices [23]. However, their implementation focused on 2D tasks and content, and thus did not exploit the unique realm of spatial 3D tasks and interactions that the combination of devices affords ; Page 8: Users can toggle the selection of multiple objects by tapping them (D2H). Once selected, groups of objects can be repositioned, aligned, or deleted. The user can also lock/unlock groups of objects with a lock icon. Once locked, subsequent 3D movement of the phone repositions them as a group (D1H). Icons are provided to align multiple objects to the left, right, top, bottom, front and back. Additionally, the user can tap or swipe with the finger along the physical edges of the phone to perform alignment or distribution in the corresponding direction ). Regarding claim 25, Zhu, in view of Veiga teaches the method of claim 22, Zhu discloses wherein the respective one or more additional virtual locations are determined according to respective one or more fixed spatial relationships between the physical location of the 2D display device and each of the one or more additional virtual locations (Table 1; Page 2: cross-device computing is often used to extend the input and output areas of interactive devices [7, 8, 60]. Also related, a number of cross-device platforms have used a mobile phone to provide spatial input for a secondary display, like desktop ; Page 5: we can synthesize prior work, comparing their coverage of each element of the design space (Table 2). Notably, our analysis of the prior work indicates that each prior system typically focuses on only one direction of the relationship between the two interactive platforms. The main exception is MultiFi, which considers the bidirectional relationship between a headmounted display and mobile devices [23]. However, their implementation focused on 2D tasks and content, and thus did not exploit the unique realm of spatial 3D tasks and interactions that the combination of devices affords ; Page 8: Users can toggle the selection of multiple objects by tapping them (D2H). Once selected, groups of objects can be repositioned, aligned, or deleted. The user can also lock/unlock groups of objects with a lock icon. Once locked, subsequent 3D movement of the phone repositions them as a group (D1H). Icons are provided to align multiple objects to the left, right, top, bottom, front and back. Additionally, the user can tap or swipe with the finger along the physical edges of the phone to perform alignment or distribution in the corresponding direction ). Regarding claim 27, Zhu, in view of Veiga teaches the method of claim 21, Veiga discloses wherein detecting user attention comprises: detecting, using sensed data from an input sensor, head movement or orientation indicating user attention directed to the second software application instance (Column 8, lines 8-39: the computer program 38 may be configured to determine the current user focus 58 based on different types of sensor data 54 received by the sensor devices 20. Turning to FIG. 5, an example mobile computing device 12 is resting on top of a table. As shown, the pair of display devices 24A and 24B have a back-to-back angular orientation. Thus, the first display device, display device 24A in this example, is facing upwards and is being viewed by the user 60. On the other hand, the second display device, display device 24B in this example, is facing downward toward the table, and is not being viewed by the user ; Column 25, line 48-Column 26, line 12: a mobile computing device comprising a processor, two or more sensor devices including a first sensor and a second sensor, the first sensor consuming less power than the second sensor, two or more display devices, and a housing including the processor, the two or more sensor devices, and the two or more display devices, the housing including a hinge between a pair of display devices of the two or more display devices, the hinge being configured to permit the pair of display devices to rotate between angular orientations from a face-to-face angular orientation to a back-to-back angular orientation, the processor being configured to detect a current angular orientation between the pair of display devices indicating that the pair of display devices are facing away from each other, determine a current user focus indicating that a first display device of the pair of display devices is being viewed by the user, and that a second display device of the pair of display devices is not being viewed by the user, where to determine the current user focus, the processor is configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor and determine a candidate user focus based on the first signal at a first computed confidence level, determine that the first computed confidence value does not exceed a predetermined threshold, and in response to this determination, powering up the second sensor, receive a second signal from the second sensor, determine the candidate user focus based on the second signal and the first signal at a second computed confidence level, and determine whether the second computed confidence level exceeds the predetermined threshold, and if so, determine that the current user focus is the candidate user focus, and reduce a power usage of a display device that does not have the current user focus ). Regarding claim 28, Zhu, in view of Veiga teaches the method of claim 21, Veiga discloses wherein detecting user attention comprises: detecting, using sensed data from an input sensor, a gesture indicating user attention directed to the second software application instance (Column 22, lines 33-48: input subsystem 908 may comprise or interface with one or more user-input devices such as a keyboard, mouse, touch screen, or game controller. In some embodiments, the input subsystem may comprise or interface with selected natural user input (NUI) componentry. Such componentry may be integrated or peripheral, and the transduction and/or processing of input actions may be handled on- or off-board. Example NUI componentry may include a microphone for speech and/or voice recognition; an infrared, color, stereoscopic, and/or depth camera for machine vision and/or gesture recognition; a head tracker, eye tracker, accelerometer, and/or gyroscope for motion detection and/or intent recognition; as well as electric-field sensing componentry for assessing brain activity; and/or any other suitable sensor ; Column 7, lines 38-60: computer program 38 is further configured to determine that the current user focus 58 has changed from the first display device to the second display device based on at least detecting the signature gesture input, such as the flick gesture input 64. As shown in the example of FIG. 4, the user 60 has rotated the mobile computing device 12 one hundred and eighty degrees around the longitudinal axis, thus resulting in the mobile computing device 12 being flipped to the opposite side. Accordingly, after rotating the mobile computing device 12, the first display device, which was display device 24A, will be facing away from the user while the second display device, which was display device 24B, will be facing toward the user. Thus, the current user focus 58 will have changed from the first display device to the second display device, as the user 60 will now be viewing the second display device and not viewing the first display device ). Regarding claim 29, Zhu, in view of Veiga teaches the method of claim 21, Veiga discloses wherein detecting user attention comprises: detecting, using sensed data from an input sensor, a gaze direction indicating user attention directed to the second software application instance (Column 15, lines 50-67: a second sensor that is a depth camera 32, where the accelerometer 28 consumes less power than running the depth camera 32. In this example, to determine the current user focus 58, the processor 16 is configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor and determine a candidate user focus based on the first signal at a first computed confidence level. For example, the first sensor may be an accelerometer, the first signal may be accelerometer data included in the sensor data 54, and the candidate user focus may be determined based on detecting the signature gesture input such as the flick gesture input 64 based on the accelerometer data ; Column 17, line 58-Column 18, line 3: Proceeding from step 808 to step 810, method 800 may include determining that the current user focus 58 has changed from the first display device to the second display device based on at least detecting the signature gesture input. In one example, the signature gesture input is the flick gesture input 64 which results in the mobile computing device 12 being flipped to an opposite side. Thus, if the first display device had the current user focus, after the flick gesture input, the first display device will now be facing away from the user while the second display device will now be facing toward the user. Thus, the current user focus 58 will switch from the first display device to the second display device ; Column 25, line 48-Column 26, line 12: a mobile computing device comprising a processor, two or more sensor devices including a first sensor and a second sensor, the first sensor consuming less power than the second sensor, two or more display devices, and a housing including the processor, the two or more sensor devices, and the two or more display devices, the housing including a hinge between a pair of display devices of the two or more display devices, the hinge being configured to permit the pair of display devices to rotate between angular orientations from a face-to-face angular orientation to a back-to-back angular orientation, the processor being configured to detect a current angular orientation between the pair of display devices indicating that the pair of display devices are facing away from each other, determine a current user focus indicating that a first display device of the pair of display devices is being viewed by the user, and that a second display device of the pair of display devices is not being viewed by the user, where to determine the current user focus, the processor is configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor and determine a candidate user focus based on the first signal at a first computed confidence level, determine that the first computed confidence value does not exceed a predetermined threshold, and in response to this determination, powering up the second sensor, receive a second signal from the second sensor, determine the candidate user focus based on the second signal and the first signal at a second computed confidence level, and determine whether the second computed confidence level exceeds the predetermined threshold, and if so, determine that the current user focus is the candidate user focus, and reduce a power usage of a display device that does not have the current user focus ). Regarding claim 30, Zhu, in view of Veiga teaches the method of claim 21, Veiga discloses wherein detecting user attention comprises: detecting, using sensed data from an input sensor, user input indicating user attention directed to the second software application instance ((Column 15, lines 50-67: a second sensor that is a depth camera 32, where the accelerometer 28 consumes less power than running the depth camera 32. In this example, to determine the current user focus 58, the processor 16 is configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor and determine a candidate user focus based on the first signal at a first computed confidence level. For example, the first sensor may be an accelerometer, the first signal may be accelerometer data included in the sensor data 54, and the candidate user focus may be determined based on detecting the signature gesture input such as the flick gesture input 64 based on the accelerometer data ; Column 17, line 58-Column 18, line 3: Proceeding from step 808 to step 810, method 800 may include determining that the current user focus 58 has changed from the first display device to the second display device based on at least detecting the signature gesture input. In one example, the signature gesture input is the flick gesture input 64 which results in the mobile computing device 12 being flipped to an opposite side. Thus, if the first display device had the current user focus, after the flick gesture input, the first display device will now be facing away from the user while the second display device will now be facing toward the user. Thus, the current user focus 58 will switch from the first display device to the second display device ; Column 25, line 48-Column 26, line 12: a mobile computing device comprising a processor, two or more sensor devices including a first sensor and a second sensor, the first sensor consuming less power than the second sensor, two or more display devices, and a housing including the processor, the two or more sensor devices, and the two or more display devices, the housing including a hinge between a pair of display devices of the two or more display devices, the hinge being configured to permit the pair of display devices to rotate between angular orientations from a face-to-face angular orientation to a back-to-back angular orientation, the processor being configured to detect a current angular orientation between the pair of display devices indicating that the pair of display devices are facing away from each other, determine a current user focus indicating that a first display device of the pair of display devices is being viewed by the user, and that a second display device of the pair of display devices is not being viewed by the user, where to determine the current user focus, the processor is configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor and determine a candidate user focus based on the first signal at a first computed confidence level, determine that the first computed confidence value does not exceed a predetermined threshold, and in response to this determination, powering up the second sensor, receive a second signal from the second sensor, determine the candidate user focus based on the second signal and the first signal at a second computed confidence level, and determine whether the second computed confidence level exceeds the predetermined threshold, and if so, determine that the current user focus is the candidate user focus, and reduce a power usage of a display device that does not have the current user focus )). Regarding claim 31, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 21 (except for the memory and processor, which are disclosed by Veira, Fig. 11; Columns 20-21: processor 902 volatile memory 903, and a non-volatile storage device 904. Computing system 900 may optionally include a display subsystem 906, input subsystem 908, communication subsystem 1000, and/or other components not shown in FIG. 11 ); thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 32, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 22; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 33, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 23; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 34, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 24; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 35, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 25; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 36, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 27; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 37, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 28; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 38, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 29; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 39, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 30; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Regarding claim 40, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 31; thus they are rejected on similar grounds. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 MATTHEW D SALVUCCI whose telephone number is (571)270-5748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-4:00PT. 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, XIAO WU can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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. /MATTHEW SALVUCCI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 2 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 3 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 4 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 5 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 6 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 7 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 8 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 9 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 10 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 11 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 12 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 13 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 14 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 15 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 16 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 17 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 18 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 19 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 20 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 21 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 22 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/807,510 Page 23 Art Unit: 2613
Prosecution Insights