DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 13 September 2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 5-6, 8-14, and 17-18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the graphical user interface element and the second graphical user interface element are visually consistent with each other.” The term “visually consistent” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of the term. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 16-18 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 15, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kakati et al., US 11,435,876 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Kakati discloses a method comprising:
Receiving, by one or more processors of a computing device, a first indication of user input that corresponds to a capture action to capture content. Kakati fig. 9 (step 904).
In response to the content being captured, outputting, by the one or more processors and for display at a display device, a graphical user interface element that includes indications of a plurality of actions, wherein the plurality of actions include one or more of an edit action, a cross-device sharing action, a cross-application sharing action, or one or more recommended actions associated with the content. Kakati teaches presenting an item-sharing menu comprising item-sharing options. Kakati figs. 9 (step 906), 5 (user interface 500), 6 (user interface 600).
Receiving, by the one or more processors, a second indication of user input that corresponds to selection of an action of the plurality of actions indicated by the graphical user interface element. Kakati teaches receiving a selection from the item-sharing menu. Kakati figs. 9 (step 908).
In response to receiving the second indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the action, performing, by the one or more processors, the action. Kakati teaches performing an action corresponding to the selection from the item-sharing menu. Kakati figs. 9 (step 908), fig. 7 (user interface 700 provided in response to user input).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Kakati discloses in response to the content being captured, determining, by the one or more processors and based at least in part on the content, the one or more recommended actions associated with the content. Kakati 8:19-10:26. figs. 5, 6.
Claim 5, which depends on claim 1, recites the limitation “in response to receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the edit action, outputting, by the one or more processors for display at the display device, an editing graphical user interface that enables editing of the content.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step (“outputting … an editing graphical user interface”) that need only be performed if a condition precedent (“receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the edit action”) is met. Accordingly, this limitation is given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2111.04.
Claim 6, which depends on claim 1, recites the limitation “in response to receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the cross-device sharing action, outputting, by the one or more processors for display at the display device, a sharing graphical user interface that enables sharing the content with one or more other computing devices.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step (“outputting … a sharing graphical user interface”) that need only be performed if a condition precedent (“receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the cross-device sharing action”) is met. Accordingly, this limitation is given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2111.04. Nevertheless, Kakati teaches this limitation. Kakati figs. 5, 6.
Claim 7, which depends on claim 6, recites the limitation “wherein outputting the sharing graphical user interface further comprises: outputting, by the one or more processors, the sharing graphical user interface that includes indications of one or more other computing devices; receiving, by the one or more processors, a third indication of user input that corresponds to selection of another computing device of the one or more other computing devices indicated by the sharing graphical user interface; and in response to receiving the third indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the other computing device, sharing, by the one or more processors, the content with the other computing device.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step (“outputting … the sharing graphical user interface”) that need only be performed if a condition precedent (“receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the cross-device sharing action”) from claim 6 is met. Accordingly, this limitation is given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2111.04. Nevertheless, Kakati teaches this limitation. Kakati figs. 5 (item-sharing options 504, recently-utilized contacts 506), 6 (item-sharing options 606).
Claim 8, which depends on claim 1, recites the limitation “in response to receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the cross-device sharing action, determining, by the one or more processors, one or more other computing devices with which to share the content; and sharing, by the one or more processors, the content with the one or more other computing devices.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step (“sharing, … the content with the one or more other computing devices”) that need only be performed if a condition precedent (“receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the cross-device sharing action”) is met. Accordingly, this limitation is given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2111.04. Nevertheless, Kakati teaches this limitation. Kakati figs. 5, 6.
Claim 9, which depends on claim 1, recites the limitation “in response to receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the cross-application sharing action, determining, by the one or more processors, one or more applications with which to share the content; and sharing, by the one or more processors, the content with the one or more applications.” This limitation is contingent because it recites a step (“sharing, … the content with the one or more applications”) that need only be performed if a condition precedent (“receiving an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the cross-application sharing action”) is met. Accordingly, this limitation is given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2111.04. Nevertheless, Kakati teaches this limitation. Kakati figs. 5, 6.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Kakati discloses wherein the content includes one or more of text, an image, a video, audio output, or a file. Kakati 2:25-61.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Kakati discloses wherein the capture action to capture the content comprises a screenshot action to capture a screenshot that includes the content. Kakati 2:25-61.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Kakati discloses wherein the capture action to capture the content comprises a copy action to copy the content. Kakati 3:15-43.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Kakati discloses wherein the capture action to capture the content comprises a sharing function provided by an operating system of the computing device. Kakati 4:3-12, 6:60-7:8.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Kakati discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, a fourth indication of user input that corresponds to a second capture action to capture a second content, wherein the second capture action is of a different type of capture action than the capture action; in response to the second content being captured, outputting, by the one or more processors and for display at the display device, a second graphical user interface element that includes indications of a second plurality of actions, wherein the second plurality of actions include one or more of the edit action, the cross-device sharing action, or the cross-application sharing action; receiving, by the one or more processors, a fifth indication of user input that corresponds to selection of a second action of the second plurality of actions indicated by the second graphical user interface element; and in response to receiving the fifth indication of user input that corresponds to selection of the second action, performing, by the one or more processors, the second action. Kakati teaches different types of capture actions. Kakati 2:25-61, 3:17-43.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 14, Kakati discloses wherein the graphical user interface element and the second graphical user interface element are visually consistent with each other. Kakati teaches visually consistent user interfaces provided by the operating system. Kakati 4:13-40, fig. 5.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, Kakati discloses wherein the graphical user interface element and the second graphical user interface element are a same first graphical user interface element type. Kakati teaches visually consistent user interfaces provided by the operating system. Kakati 4:13-40, fig. 5.
Claim 19 is drawn to an apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Claim 20 is drawn to instructions stored in a medium that implement the method recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kakati et al., US 11,435,876 B1, in view of Sharifi et al., US 9,798,708 B1.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Kakati does not explicitly disclose, but Sharifi discloses wherein determining the one or more recommended actions associated with the content further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the content includes a street address; and in response to determining that the content includes the street address, determining, by the one or more processors, that the one or more recommended actions include a mapping action that, when selected, enables the one or more processors to present a digital map of the street address included in the content. Sharifi teaches determining actionable content within captured content. Sharifi fig. 8 (step 815). A corresponding action for the actionable content may be identified. Id. fig. 8 (step 825). For example, the actionable content may be a street address and the corresponding action may be viewing the street address on a map. Id. 8:55-9:23, 22:32-60.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakati’s process of determining recommended actions for captured content with Sharifi’s process of determining a mapping action for a street address in captured content. Such a modification would increase functionality of the display device by allowing for automatic performance of a task with minimal input from the user. See Sharifi 3:35-37.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 2, Kakati does not explicitly disclose, but Sharifi discloses wherein determining the one or more recommended actions associated with the content further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the content includes a Universal Resource Locator; and in response to determining that the content includes the Universal Resource Locator, determining, by the one or more processors, that the one or more recommended actions include a web browsing action that, when selected, enables the one or more processors to open the Universal Resource Locator included in content in a web browser application. Sharifi teaches determining actionable content within captured content. Sharifi fig. 8 (step 815). A corresponding action for the actionable content may be identified. Id. fig. 8 (step 825). For example, the actionable content may be a web address and the corresponding action may be viewing the associated content in a browser. Id. 8:55-9:23, 22:32-60.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakati’s process of determining recommended actions for captured content with Sharifi’s process of determining a web browsing action for a web address in captured content. Such a modification would increase functionality of the display device by allowing for automatic performance of a task with minimal input from the user. See Sharifi 3:35-37.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kakati et al., US 11,435,876 B1, in view of Jon et al., US 2019/0147026 A1.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 16, Kakati alone does not explicitly disclose, but the combination of Kakati with Jon discloses wherein the graphical user interface element and the second graphical user interface element each indicates the edit action using a same second graphical user interface element type, wherein the graphical user interface element and the second graphical user interface element each indicates the cross-device sharing action using a same third graphical user interface element type, and wherein the graphical user interface element and the second graphical user interface element each indicates the cross-application sharing action using a same fourth graphical user interface element type. Kakati teaches visually consistent user interfaces provided by the operating system. Kakati 4:13-40, fig. 5. Kakati does not disclose an edit action. However, Jon teaches a graphical user interface for captured content comprising an edit action. Jon fig. 5E (affordance 528).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakati’s process of presenting visually consistent user interfaces with Jon’s process of presenting a graphical user interface comprising an edit action. Such a modification would increase functionality of the display device by allowing for automatic performance of a task with minimal input from the user. See Sharifi 3:35-37.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 15, Kakati alone does not explicitly disclose, but the combination of Kakati with Jon discloses wherein the graphical user interface element and the second graphical user interface element each includes indications of the edit action, the cross-device sharing action, and the cross-application sharing action in a same order. Kakati teaches visually consistent user interfaces provided by the operating system. Kakati 4:13-40, fig. 5. The item-sharing options may be ordered on a per user basis. Id. 9:49-10:3. Kakati does not disclose an edit action. However, Jon teaches a graphical user interface for captured content comprising an edit action. Jon fig. 5E (affordance 528). Likewise, the actions may appear in a same order across capture actions. See id. figs. 5L, 6M.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakati’s process of presenting visually consistent user interfaces with item-sharing options ordered on a per user basis with Jon’s process of presenting a graphical user interface comprising an edit action. Such a modification would increase functionality of the display device by allowing for automatic performance of a task with minimal input from the user. See Sharifi 3:35-37.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Behzadi et al., US 2022/0155920 A1, discloses a graphical user interface for sharing content with another electronic device.
Shaw et al., US 2014/0365912 A1, discloses a graphical user interface for “AirDrop” sharing of content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights