Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on September 30th, 2024
Claims 1-23 are pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “ a style similar to” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a style similar to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-14, 16, 17 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Briand, US 2013/0174070 A1 in view of Perantatos et al., US 2006/0212790 A1.
As for independent claim 1:
Briand discloses an information display method, comprising:
in response to a trigger operation on a target component (see trigger operation in 0053-0055), displaying first prompt information on a target interface, wherein the first prompt information is used to indicate a candidate placement area on the target interface that meets a condition for placing the target component (0008-0011, 0053, 0056-0059, Briand discloses that selection of a first object and drag input, triggers the operation and causes a first group of second objects “onto which a selected first object is likely to be dropped” to be rendered in a first rendering mode different from the non target second objects, also see potential targets in 0057);
Briand does not disclose if it is detected that the target component enters the target interface, displaying second prompt information on the target interface, wherein the second prompt information is used to indicate a target placement area for placing the target component, and the target placement area is included in the candidate placement area. Perantatos discloses if it is detected that the target component enters the target interface, displaying second prompt information on the target interface, wherein the second prompt information is used to indicate a target placement area for placing the target component, and the target placement area is included in the candidate placement area in 0028, 0037. In the cited sections Perantatos discloses detecting that the dragged element has been moved to a position within the target listing at which it may be dropped. Perantatos further discloses that a colored horizonal line or bar snaps into the position at which the dropped element will be positioned based on the current location of the cursor, and for providing visual feedback as to where the dragged element will be displayed if released. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for dependent claim 2:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target interface comprises a page editing interface, and the target component is a component used to edit contents presented by the page editing interface (Perantatos, 0006, 0007, 0026, discloses web page editing mode in which elements, links, and content of a webpage are edited by drag and drop). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for dependent claim 3:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in response to a trigger operation on a target component, displaying first prompt information on a target interface, comprises: in response to a trigger operation on the target component, controlling movement of the target component; if the target component moves out of the component interface and does not enter the target interface, displaying a first prompt message in the candidate placement area in the target interface; wherein the trigger operation is input by a preset trigger object, and the trigger object comprises one of a mouse pointer, a stylus, or a touch part (Briand discloses that each drag input displaces the first object so it follows the user’s input, and that the candidate indicating first rendering mode is applied as soon as the system received the drag gesture, regardless of the object’s position relative to any target in 0051, 0054-0059. Briand further discloses that the trigger object is touch input, stylus, mouse in 0042, 0053. Perantatos discloses mouse, touch input in 0022 and 0027).
As for dependent claim 4:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 1, wherein if it is detected that the target component enters the target interface, displaying second prompt information on the target interface, comprises: determining a target position of a trigger object in a component area in the target interface if it is detected that the target component is located in the component area; determining the target placement area from the candidate placement areas based on the target position; and replacing the first prompt information displayed in the target placement area with the second prompt information (Perantatos discloses that the insertion bar is positioned based on the current cursor location, selecting the drop coordinates from multiple points, and that this position-based indicator replaces the general candidate state as the element reaches the target in 0007, 0028, 0037). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for dependent claim 8:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 4, wherein after replacing the first prompt information displayed in the target placement area with the second prompt information, the method further includes: in response to a component placement confirmation operation, controlling the target component to be placed in the target placement area (Briand, 0107-0109, discloses providing a result of the drop upon a confirmation operation, including a "CONFIRM DROP?" prompt and enabling the drop following confirmation. Perantatos discloses release the element is inserted into the located insertion point in 0038).
As for dependent claim 9:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the candidate placement area is a set area in the target interface, and if it is detected that the target component enters the target interface, displaying second prompt information on the target interface, comprises: if it is detected that the target component enters the target interface, controlling the first prompt information displayed in the candidate placement area of the target interface to be replaced with the second prompt information (Perantatos, 0028, 0037, discloses that within the target listing area that the insertion bar replaces the general candidate indication to show the specific location). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for dependent claim 10:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the candidate placement area is an area between boundaries of existing component areas in the target interface (Perantatos, 0028, discloses that the insertion bar snaps to a position between existing elements). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for dependent claim 11:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 10, wherein when the target interface does not include an existing component area, a top, bottom, left or right of the target interface is determined as a candidate placement area (Perantatos, 0028-0029, discloses that when a group or listing contains no elements and an element is dragged to it, a horizontal line is deployed to show the element will be placed as the sole element of that group). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for dependent claim 12:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: determining component areas with a style similar to the target component based on parameters of the target component and parameters of existing components in the target interface, and determining positions between such component areas as candidate placement areas (Perantatos, 0028-0029, 0037, discloses components and target interface). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for dependent claim 13:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the displaying the first prompt information in the candidate placement area in the target interface comprises: only displaying the first prompt information about a specific text in the candidate placement area, or changing a color of the candidate placement area while displaying the first prompt information of the specific text, or only changing the color of the candidate placement area to express the first prompt information (Perantatos, 0028, 0032, discloses a colored indicator bar, red and blue, and a colored line around a target group used to show the placement). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for dependent claim 14:
Briand–Perantatos discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the controlling the first prompt information displayed in the candidate placement area of the target interface to be replaced with the second prompt information comprises: only displaying the second prompt information about a specific text in the candidate placement area, or changing a color of the candidate placement area while displaying the second prompt information of the specific text, or only changing the color of the candidate placement area to express the second prompt information (Perantatos, 0028, 0032 discloses the colored insertion bar indicates the drop location by color). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand to incorporate the teaching of Perantatos of displaying indicators showing placement position, thus allow displaying insertion indicator in order to show the user the specific target placement area in the user interface (Perantatos, 0004-0005, 0007).
As for independent claims 16, 17:
Claims 16, 17 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 20, 22:Claims 20 and 22 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 3 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 21, 23:Claims 21, 23 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 4 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Briand, US 2013/0174070 A1 in view of Perantatos et al., US 2006/0212790 A1 and in further view of Arora et al. US 2007/0118793 A1.
As for dependent claim 5:
Briand–Perantatos does not disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the component area may include multiple sub-areas, and the determining the target placement area from the candidate placement areas based on the target position, comprises: determining a target sub-area corresponding to the target position, the target sub-area being one of the multiple sub-areas; determining a candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area; and determining the candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area as the target placement area. Arora discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the component area may include multiple sub-areas, and the determining the target placement area from the candidate placement areas based on the target position, comprises: determining a target sub-area corresponding to the target position, the target sub-area being one of the multiple sub-areas; determining a candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area; and determining the candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area as the target placement area in 0077, 0078. In the cited sections Arora discloses a target component area (page icon) has multiple sub areas and that the region the dragged item is positioned near determines which connection point is indicated and placed at the end such as dropping near the bottom of the target makes the item a child and dropping near the left side makes it a sibling. Also see determining relevant sub area from the dragged item’s position and displaying the indicator location in 0087. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand and Perantatos to incorporate the teaching of Arora sub area based placement determination and sub area mapping, thus providing the user a finer positional control over where the target component lands relative to an existing component area (Arora, 0077-0078).
As for dependent claim 6:
Briand–Perantatos–Arora discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the determining a candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area comprises: determining a directional relationship between the target sub-area and a center point of the component area; wherein the directional relationship reflects a target direction of the center point of the component area pointing to the target sub-area; and using a candidate placement area closest to the center point of the component area in the target direction as the candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area (Arora, 0087 and also see 0077-0078. Arora discloses dragged node is close to a given side or to the bottom of the target node, see highlighted and arrow indicators). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand and Perantatos to incorporate the teaching of Arora sub area based placement determination and sub area mapping, thus providing the user a finer positional control over where the target component lands relative to an existing component area (Arora, 0077-0078).
As for dependent claim 7:
Briand–Perantatos–Arora discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the component area includes two sub-areas, and the using a candidate placement area closest to the center point of the component area in the target direction as the candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area, comprises: if the target sub-area is a sub-area pointed to by the center point of the component area in a first direction, using a candidate placement area in the first direction pointed to by the center point of the component area and closest to the center point of the component area as the candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area; if the target sub-area is a sub-area pointed to by the center point of the component area in a second direction, using a candidate placement area in the second direction pointed to by the center point of the component area and closest to the center point of the component area as the candidate placement area corresponding to the target sub-area; wherein the first direction is an opposite direction of the second direction (Arora, 0078, 0087, discloses two directional sub areas resolved by corresponding side rule, an arrow is displayed on the side of the target node that the dragged item is near). Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Briand and Perantatos to incorporate the teaching of Arora sub area based placement determination and sub area mapping, thus providing the user a finer positional control over where the target component lands relative to an existing component area (Arora, 0077-0078).
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 .x
Prosecution Insights