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
1. This is in response to application filed on 09/20/2024 in which claim 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1, 8 and 15 are in independent form.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 3, 10 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten a) in independent form and b) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim statutory?
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-8 are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
Prong 1: (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Independent claim 1: Yes, the limitation “presenting a user interface on a user device, the user interface including a graphical user interface element, the graphical user interface element including a base layer and a top layer, wherein a presentation width of the top layer is initially set to zero” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The limitations are analogous to a person merely observing the graphical user interface element including a base layer and a top layer, wherein a presentation width of the top layer is initially set to zero. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 2-8 incorporate the limitations of the parent claim 1 and thus recited the same abstract idea.
Prong 2: (Does the claim recited additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?)
Independent claim 1: No. Claim 1 further recites “determining a user interaction with the graphical user interface element; and in response to the user interaction, dynamically expanding the presentation width of the top layer such that the top layer overlays the base layer as the width increases”. However, since claim 1 is a method claim and this limitation is contingent on a user input, the breadth or scope of this limitation does not actually occur if the user does not make that input the method stops. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 2 recites “further comprising: determining whether the user interaction with the graphical user interface element stops before the expansion of the presentation width is complete; in response to determining that the user interaction stopped before the expansion of the presentation width was completed, stopping the increasing width of the presentation layer.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4: No. Claim 4 recites “wherein in response to determining that the user interaction did not stop before the expansion of the presentation width was completed, transitioning the user interface to present additional content.” which merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The Claim 4 further recites “determining that the user interaction did not stop before the expansion of the presentation width was completed” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 5 recites “wherein rate of expansion of the presentation width corresponds to a duration of a timer triggered by the user interaction” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 6 recites “wherein the base layer and the top layer overlap and wherein expansion of the presentation width reveals the top layer to produce an animation effect” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7: No. Claim 7 recites “wherein the top layer has a different background color and font color than the base layer, and wherein the animation effect comprises a loading effect in which the expansion of the presentation width of the top layer from a left side to a right side produces the animation effect.” which merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). The Claim 7 further recites “wherein the animation effect comprises a loading effect in which the expansion of the presentation width of the top layer from a left side to a right side produces the animation effect” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Prong 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
Independent claim 1: No. Claim 1 further recites “determining a user interaction with the graphical user interface element; and in response to the user interaction, dynamically expanding the presentation width of the top layer such that the top layer overlays the base layer as the width increases”. However, since claim 1 is a method claim and this limitation is contingent on a user input, the breadth or scope of this limitation does not actually occur if the user does not make that input the method stops. Consequently, claim 1 being a method claim, dynamically expanding the presentation width of the top layer such that the top layer overlays the base layer as the width increases does not happen if the user does not interact with the interface elements, the method stops. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2: No, No. The claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4: No. Claim 4 recites “determining that the user interaction did not stop before the expansion of the presentation width was completed, transitioning the user interface to present additional content.” which merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5: No, No. The claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6: No. The claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7: No. Claim 7 recites “wherein the top layer has a different background color and font color than the base layer, and wherein the animation effect comprises a loading effect in which the expansion of the presentation width of the top layer from a left side to a right side produces the animation effect.” which merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni (US PG Pub 2018/0335921) published on November 22, 2018 in view of Duan et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0320887) filed on June 25, 2022.
As per claim 1, 8 and 15, Karunamuni teaches A method comprising: presenting a user interface on a user device, the user interface including a graphical user interface element, the graphical user interface element including a base layer and a top layer(fig 5C10 and 5C42 shows interface and window being displayed in overlapping manner, as taught by Karunamuni), wherein a presentation width of the top layer(fig 5C10 and 5C42 shows interface and window being displayed in overlapping manner. Also displays the width of the windows, as taught by Karunamuni);
determining a user interaction with the graphical user interface element(Para[00273-0074 fig 5c42 shows touch and hold gesture on the window, as taught by Karunamuni); and
in response to the user interaction, dynamically expanding the presentation width of the top layer such that the top layer overlays the base layer as the width increases(Para[00273-0274] fig 5c42 and FIG. 5C44, shows touch and hold gesture on the window. the press gesture by contact 5577-a increases above a first intensity threshold (e.g., hint intensity threshold IT.sub.H), AirDrop icon 5552 increases in size (and optionally, but not shown here, the rest of expanded connectivity module 5550 starts to blur). As the press gesture by contact 5577-b continues to increase in intensity and increases above a second intensity threshold (e.g., light press intensity threshold IT.sub.L), the control icon is expanded (e.g., “popped open”) to display an enhanced view of the control in enhanced AirDrop control 5582 (and expanded connectivity module 5550 is blurred). As shown in FIG. 5C44, enhanced AirDrop control 5582 includes additional information and/or controls (e.g., options to select between “Receiving Off,” “Contacts Only,” and “Everyone,” etc.) that were not shown in expanded connectivity module 5550 (e.g., in FIG. 5C41). In some embodiments, device 100 displays the enhanced view of a control (e.g., enhanced AirDrop control 5582) in response to a touch-hold input (e.g., a long press input by contact 5577) (e.g., based on length of time of the contact rather than intensity of the contact), as taught by Karunamuni).
Karunamuni does not explicitly teach top layer is initially set to zero;
On the other hand, Duan teaches top layer is initially set to zero(Para[0131] If a distance between a left boundary of the scrolling window and a left boundary of the specified page is less than the preset width and is greater than zero, the scrolling window moves leftward to an overlapping position between the left boundary of the scrolling window and the left boundary of the specified page, where a movement distance is less than the preset width. If a distance between a left boundary of the scrolling window and a left boundary of the specified page is equal to zero, the scrolling window cannot move leftward, as taught by Duan)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Karunamuni invention with the teaching of Duan because doing so would
allow the electronic device to scroll in the plurality of directions, to capture the image of the specified page displayed on a screen.
As per claim 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Karunamuni and Duan teaches further comprising: determining whether the user interaction with the graphical user interface element stops before the expansion of the presentation width is complete(Para[0273-0274], as taught by Karunamuni);
in response to determining that the user interaction stopped before the expansion of the presentation width was completed, stopping the increasing width of the presentation layer(Para[0273-0274], as taught by Karunamuni).
As per claim 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Karunamuni and Duan teaches wherein in response to determining that the user interaction did not stop before the expansion of the presentation width was completed, transitioning the user interface to present additional content(Para[00273-0274] fig 5c42 and FIG. 5C44 additional content being displayed based touch and hold gesture, as taught by Karunamuni).
As per claim 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Karunamuni and Duan teaches wherein the base layer and the top layer overlap and wherein expansion of the presentation width reveals the top layer to produce an animation effect(Para[00301-0303] fig 5E20-5e23 and 5e31-5e34 an animated transition from the volume slider bar 5818 to the ringer slider bar 5822 is displayed, as taught by Karunamuni).
As per claim 7 and 14, the combination of Karunamuni and Duan teaches wherein the top layer has a different background color and font color than the base layer(Para[00301-0303] fig 5E20-5e23, as taught by Karunamuni), and wherein the animation effect comprises a loading effect in which the expansion of the presentation width of the top layer from a left side to a right side produces the animation effect(Para[00301-0303] [00370-00371], as taught by Karunamuni).
7. Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni (US PG Pub 2018/0335921) published on November 22, 2018 in view of Duan et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0320887) filed on June 25, 2022 in further view of Shin (US PG Pub 2010/0289825) published on November 18, 2010.
As per claim 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Karunamuni and Duan teaches wherein rate of expansion of the presentation width corresponds to a duration of a timer triggered by the user interaction(Para[0196][0273-0274] the press gesture by contact 5577-b continues to increase in intensity and increases above a second intensity threshold (e.g., light press intensity threshold IT.sub.L), the control icon is expanded (e.g., “popped open”) to display an enhanced view of the control in enhanced AirDrop control 5582 (and expanded connectivity module 5550 is blurred). It is obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art that higher the intensity, longer the touch gesture, which corresponds to time, as taught by Karunamuni).
Karunamuni does not explicitly teach a timer corresponds to a touch duration.
On the other hand, Shin teaches a timer corresponds to a touch duration(Para[0039] the control unit 160 may measure the duration for which a touch action is sustained (touch hold time), and control the display section 142 to conduct image zooming according to the measured touch hold time, as taught by Shin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Karunamuni and Duan invention with the teaching of Shin because doing so would
result in increased accuracy by allowing the user to select zoom amount of a window by touch gesture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM EST.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Friday, June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights