Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on September 13, 2024 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1–7, 9, and 10 are now amended.
Claim 8 is now cancelled.
New claims 11–21 are now added.
Claims 1–7 and 9–21 are pending.
SPecification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following titles are suggested:
Interactive Rearview Mirror Display
Displaying Virtual Rearview Mirror images via Edge-Swipe Gestures
Touch-Controlled Rearview Image Display
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1–7 and 9–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 108421254 A (“Shao”)1 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0252387 A1 (“Spofford”).
Claim 1
Shao teaches:
An information processing method, the method comprising:
This rejection is based in part on Shao’s “Embodiment 3,” which incorporates the method steps of Embodiments 1 and 2 by reference. See Shao ¶¶ 93 and 79 (cumulatively incorporating the steps of their predecessor Embodiments by reference). Accordingly, it should be understood that when this rejection jumps from the steps of one flowchart to the steps of another, the finding is that they are all part of the same embodiment, rather than a combination of adjacent embodiments.
executing an application on a processor of a terminal device
Starting with S101, the method steps are performed “during game operation.” Shao ¶ 63. Game operation is achieved by using a processor 21 to execute instructions stored in a memory 22. Shao ¶ 123.
and rendering a graphical user interface on a touch display screen of the terminal device,
“During game operation, the content displayed on the game interface is captured by a virtual camera.” Shao ¶ 63. The game interface is displayed on a display screen of the game terminal. See Shao FIGs. 2, 4, 6, and 7. Furthermore, while the construction of the display screen is not explicitly mentioned in the text, the Examiner further observes that Shao explicitly directs the skilled artisan to apply the method to “tablets,” which, by definition, include a touch screen. See tablet, Meriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tablet (definition 3a).
wherein the graphical user interface at least presents a picture in front of field of view of a target virtual object;
“In most cases, the image captured by this virtual camera is within the game character’s field of vision.” Shao ¶ 63.
and displaying a target rearview mirror image of a target rearview mirror corresponding to a
Step S101 proceeds with “detecting the first tilt direction and first tilt angle of the game terminal” during the game operation, Shao ¶ 62, which triggers Step S102: “When the first tilt direction and angle satisfy the first preset condition, a rearview mirror pop-up appears on the game interface. This rearview mirror pop-up is used to show the view behind the game character.” Shao ¶ 67.
Thus, the only difference between Shao and the claimed invention is the simple substitution of Shao’s tilting gesture with the claimed “swiping from an edge” gesture. Such a gesture, however, was also known for racing games prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Spofford teaches
An information processing method, the method comprising:
“FIG. 2 illustrates an example process 200 for surfacing one or more selectable elements on a display 106 of a controller 100 in response to touch input provided on the display 106 and without occluding game content being displayed within a game content window 112.” Spofford ¶ 28.
executing an application on a processor of a terminal device and rendering a graphical user interface on a touch display screen of the terminal device,
“At 202, a processor(s) of a controller system, as disclosed herein, may cause presentation of game content within a game content window 112 on a display 106 of a controller 100.” Spofford ¶ 29. The game may be “a racing game.” Spofford ¶ 69.
and displaying a target rearview mirror image of a target rearview mirror corresponding to a swiping operation in the graphical user interface, in response to the swiping operation swiping from an edge of the graphical user interface into the graphical user interface.
“[T]he processor(s) may determine that a particular type of gesture (e.g., a swipe gesture) was provided in a particular direction (e.g., an upward direction, a downward direction, etc.) at a particular location or region (e.g., a bottom edge, a top edge, etc.) of the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 31. “[S]wiping up from the bottom edge of the display 106 may cause a first set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106, swiping down from the top edge of the display 106 may cause a second set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display, swiping right from the left edge of the display 106 may cause a third set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106, and swiping left from the right edge of the display 106 may cause a fourth set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 25. Notably, these element are not merely for controlling the game console itself; they may be directly tied-in to and control the game content itself. See Spofford ¶¶ 56 and 59.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Shao’s tilting gesture with Spofford’s swiping gesture, for two reasons.
First, one would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows Shao’s overall device to be implemented more cheaply: since the off-screen game elements are now accessible via a touch gesture, there is no need for a gyroscope or accelerometer, and therefore, those components may be omitted.
Second, as a matter of obviousness law, the simple substitution of one known element to another that obtains predictable results is prima facie obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417–418 (2007). Specifically, in this case, the relevant factual findings that lead to the conclusion of a simple substitution are as follows:2
(1) The prior art contained a device, method, and product, which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a tilting gesture with an edge-swiping gesture. The evidence for this finding is provided in the first half of this rejection, via the mappings of claim elements to Shao’s disclosure.
(2) The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The evidence for this finding is provided in the second half of this rejection, via the mapping of the substituted claim element to Spofford’s disclosure.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. The evidence for this finding is that the person of ordinary skill is at least capable of programming a user interface or game to trigger specified functions in response to specified inputs, and the substitution in this rejection merely involves changing the criteria of the input from one known criteria (tilting the device) to another (swiping a location on the touch screen).
In view of these factual findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Shao’s tilting gesture with Spofford’s swiping gesture.
Claim 2
Shao teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein displaying the target rearview mirror image in the graphical user interface in response to the swiping operation comprises:
determining the target rearview mirror corresponding to the from the edge of the graphical user interface
“[W]hen the game character needs to observe the rear view, the player controlling the game character can tilt the game terminal up, down, left, or right to open the rearview mirror pop-up. To control the rearview mirror pop-up, this step detects the tilt direction and angle of the game terminal.” Shao ¶ 63.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Shao’s game terminal differs from the claimed invention in that Shao uses a tilt gesture, rather than a swiping gesture. Spofford, however, teaches:
determining the target rearview mirror corresponding to the swiping operation according to a target edge when the swiping operation swipes into the graphical user interface, in response to the swiping operation swiping from the edge of the graphical user interface into the graphical user interface.
“[S]wiping up from the bottom edge of the display 106 may cause a first set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106, swiping down from the top edge of the display 106 may cause a second set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display, swiping right from the left edge of the display 106 may cause a third set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106, and swiping left from the right edge of the display 106 may cause a fourth set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 25. Notably, these element are not merely for controlling the game console itself; they may be directly tied-in to and control the game content itself. See Spofford ¶¶ 56 and 59.
Claim 3
Shao and Spofford teach the method according to claim 1, wherein displaying the target rearview mirror image in the graphical user interface in response to the swiping operation comprises:
determining the target rearview mirror corresponding to the swiping operation according to a target swiping direction of the swiping operation, in response to the swiping operation swiping from the edge of the graphical user interface into the graphical user interface.
“[S]wiping up from the bottom edge of the display 106 may cause a first set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106, swiping down from the top edge of the display 106 may cause a second set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display, swiping right from the left edge of the display 106 may cause a third set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106, and swiping left from the right edge of the display 106 may cause a fourth set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 25. Notably, these element are not merely for controlling the game console itself; they may be directly tied-in to and control the game content itself. See Spofford ¶¶ 56 and 59.
Claim 4
Shao and Spofford teach the method according to claim 1, wherein displaying the target rearview mirror image in the graphical user interface in response to the swiping operation comprises:
in response to the swiping operation swiping from the edge of the graphical user interface into the graphical user interface, determining the target rearview mirror corresponding to the swiping operation according to a target edge in response to determining that a target swiping direction of the swiping operation matches a preset swiping direction corresponding to the target edge when the swiping operation swipes into the graphical user interface.
“[S]wiping up from the bottom edge of the display 106 may cause a first set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106, swiping down from the top edge of the display 106 may cause a second set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display, swiping right from the left edge of the display 106 may cause a third set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106, and swiping left from the right edge of the display 106 may cause a fourth set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 25. Notably, these element are not merely for controlling the game console itself; they may be directly tied-in to and control the game content itself, see Spofford ¶¶ 56 and 59, and this rejection is based on the combination of Spofford with Shao’s known mirror views for a racing game.
Claim 5
Shao and Spofford teach the method according to claim l, wherein displaying the target rearview mirror image in the graphical user interface comprises:
determining a target display area corresponding to the target rearview mirror, and displaying the target rearview mirror image in the target display area.
“Step S304: According to the tilt direction and angle, control the field of view in the rearview mirror pop-up to move a preset range in the preset direction.” Shao ¶ 95.
Claim 6
Shao and Spofford teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
ending display of the target rearview mirror image, in response to that a continuous display duration of the target rearview mirror image in the graphical user interface reaches a preset duration.
“Optionally, in another embodiment of the present invention, the rearview mirror pop-up can also be disabled by the following method: detecting the display time of the rearview mirror pop-up, and closing the rearview mirror pop-up when the display time reaches the preset time.” Shao ¶ 88. Notably, Spofford teaches the same, overlapping feature in paragraphs 33 and 49.
Claim 7
Shao and Spofford teach the method according to claim 5, further comprising:
in a case that the target rearview mirror is a first rearview mirror and in a process of displaying a first rearview mirror image of the first rearview mirror, in response to the swiping operation corresponding to a second rearview mirror, displaying a second rearview mirror image of the second rearview mirror in the graphical user interface, and ending display of the first rearview mirror image simultaneously.
“As shown in Figure 6, after enabling the rearview mirror pop-up, the player keeps the game terminal tilted upward, with the content in the mirror centered in the mirror. When the player tilts the terminal to the left, the mirror’s field of view shifts to the left, and correspondingly, the content in the mirror moves relatively to the right.” Shao ¶ 101. Recall that, per the rejection of the parent claims, Shao’s tilting operations are substituted with Spofford’s edge swiping gestures in this ground of rejection.
Claims 9 and 10
Claim 9 recites an electronic device that performs exactly the same method as claim 1 in its normal operation. The method of claim 1 also requires the processor and the memory with the computer program. Since each and every element was provided in the findings of the rejection of claim 1 above, those findings are hereby reincorporated as applied to claim 9. Claim 9 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the findings and rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites a broader version of claim 9 in which only a broader version of the memory of claim 9 is required (i.e., a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”), with all of its same computer instructions. Claim 10 is therefore rejected over all of the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 9.
Claim 11
Shao and Spofford teach the method according to claim 3, wherein the target swiping direction of the swiping operation is determined as follows:
determining a longitudinal offset between an end point and a starting point of a swiping trajectory according to the swiping trajectory of the swiping operation in the graphical user interface;
To be clear, based on the Examiner’s reading of the specification, the term “longitudinal offset” refers to a distance measured along a longitudinal line, rather than offsetting the longitudinal coordinate. Spofford teaches this by explaining that the device detects when the user “swipe[s] their finger from the top edge towards a center of the display,” Spofford ¶ 46, as well as detecting when the user provides “touch input along and/or on a bottom edge of the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 48.
determining the target swiping direction of the swiping operation as a first swiping direction in a case that the longitudinal offset is greater than 0, and;
Spofford teaches this, although it should also be noted that the prior art does not need to teach this element in order to render the claim obvious, because “[t]he 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.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). In claim 11, determining the target swiping direction as a first swiping direction is optional, because the longitudinal offset is not greater than 0 in every “case” of the method.
Nevertheless, Spofford teaches this by teaching that “the controller system disclosed herein may receive an indication of this touch input (e.g., an indication that a finger of the user 102 swiped from the bottom edge 110 towards a center of the display 106),” and then responding to this gesture by providing the menu. Spofford ¶ 24.
determining the target swiping direction of the swiping operation as a second swiping direction in a case that the longitudinal offset is smaller than 0.
Likewise, Spofford also this, although this claim element is also optional for the same reason as its predecessor. See MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). In claim 11, determining the target swiping direction as a first swiping direction is optional, because the longitudinal offset is not smaller than 0 in every “case” of the method.
Nevertheless, Spofford teaches this by teaching that the device detects when the user “swipe[s] their finger from the top edge towards a center of the display,” Spofford ¶ 46, and then responding to this gesture by providing the menu.
Claim 12
Shao and Spofford teach the method according to claim 3, wherein the target swiping direction of the swiping operation is determined as follows:
determining a lateral offset between an end point and a starting point of a swiping trajectory according to the swiping trajectory of the swiping operation in the graphical user interface;
Spofford teaches this by explaining the device detects the user “swiping right from the left edge of the display 106,” and “swiping left from the right edge.” Spofford ¶ 32.
determining the target swiping direction of the swiping operation as a first swiping direction in a case that the lateral offset is greater than 0, and;
Spofford teaches this, although it should also be noted that the prior art does not need to teach this element in order to render the claim obvious, because “[t]he 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.” MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). In claim 12, determining the target swiping direction as a first swiping direction is optional, because the lateral offset is not greater than 0 in every “case” of the method.
Nevertheless, Spofford teaches this by teaching that “swiping right from the left edge of the display 106 may cause a third set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 32.
determining the target swiping direction of the swiping operation as a second swiping direction in a case that the lateral offset is smaller than 0.
Likewise, Spofford also this, although this claim element is also optional for the same reason as its predecessor. See MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.). In claim 12, determining the target swiping direction as a second swiping direction is optional, because the lateral offset is not smaller than 0 in every “case” of the method.
Nevertheless, Spofford teaches this by teaching that “swiping left from the right edge of the display 106 may cause a fourth set of elements 104 to be surfaced on the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 32.
Claim 13
Shao and Spofford teach the method according to claim 6, further comprising:
during a process of displaying the target rearview mirror image, re-determining the continuous display duration of the target rearview mirror in response to detecting a swiping operation corresponding to the target rearview mirror.
In Spofford, the timer resets whenever the user provides a touch input to the display: “after a period of time where no touch input is received on the display 106 (e.g., after a timeout), the menus 302(1) and/or the 302(2) may disappear or be removed from being presented on the display 106.” Spofford ¶ 49.
Claims 14–19
Claims 14–19 are rejected in view of the findings and rationale provided in the rejections of corresponding claims 2–7, taken in conjunction with the further findings provided in the rejection of parent claim 9.
Claims 20 and 21
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected in view of the findings and rationale provided in the rejections of corresponding claims 2 and 3, taken in conjunction with the further findings provided in the rejection of their parent claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm 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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 All quotes and citations to Shao in this rejection come from a machine translation provided by the EPO “Patent Translate” tool. The machine translation is attached to this Office Action (coded as OTHER.REF in the file wrapper), and also available at <https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=CN&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=108421254&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=zh&TRGLANG=en>.
2 See MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(B.)).
Prosecution Insights