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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 20 September 2024, the preliminary amendment filed on 8 January 2026, and the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/24/2024, 10/24/2024, 11/13/2024, 11/13/2024, 1/2/2025, 3/20/2025, 6/3/2025, 9/11/2025, 10/8/2025, 10/22/2025, 11/6/2025, 11/26/2025, 12/9/2025, 12/24/2025, 1/16/2026, 2/19/2026, 2/27/2026, 4/2/2026, 5/11/2026, 5/19/2026, 7/1/2026, 7/21/26, and 8/18/26.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-37 were filed on 9/20/24.
Claims 1, 27, 29, 34, 35, 36, and 37 were amended on 1/8/26.
Claims 1-37 are pending. Claims 1, 36, and 37 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024, 10/24/2024, 11/13/2024, 11/13/2024, 1/2/2025, 3/20/2025, 6/3/2025, 9/11/2025, 10/8/2025, 10/22/2025, 11/6/2025, 11/26/2025, 12/9/2025, 12/24/2025, 1/16/2026, 2/19/2026, 2/27/2026, 4/2/2026, 5/11/2026, 5/19/2026, 7/1/2026, 7/21/26, and 8/18/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/20/24 have been entered and accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 9/20/24 has been entered and accepted.
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.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner’s Statement
Claim 37 recites the following contingent limitation(s): “…detecting, via the first input device, a third input directed to the first input device; and in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device: in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied… in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied” The limitation(s) is/are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. The “in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device: in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied… in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied…” limitation(s) only needs to be performed if the first set of one or more criteria or second set of one or more criteria is satisfied. If the first set of one or more criteria or second set of one or more criteria does not meet the condition of being satisfied, then the neither of the performing of the first or second operation(s) occur. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 37 requires the “at a computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and a first input device: detecting a first input...; in response to detecting the first input, displaying, …, an option user interface,...; while displaying the option user interface, detecting a second input...; after detecting the second input, detecting, via the first input device, a third input directed to the first input device; and in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device” limitation. Therefore, for art rejection purposes, claim 37 will be rejected under the BRI as just explained.
Claim 37
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “detecting a first input including a movement that starts at a first location corresponding to the first input device and ends at a second location that is different from the first location” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “first input device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “detecting” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “first input device”, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to visually see if an object moved to a new location.
The limitation “…detecting a second input selecting a respective selectable user interface object of the plurality of selectable user interface objects” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “option user interface”, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determine if a user has selected an object in their mind or by circling an object in a list on paper with a pen.
The limitation “after detecting the second input, detecting, via the first input device, a third input directed to the first input device; and in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “first input device”, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determine if a user has touched an object visually.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
in response to detecting the first input, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, an option user interface, including a plurality of selectable user interface objects corresponding to a respective plurality of operations that can be associated with the first input device;
while displaying the option user interface….
The “displaying” limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) .
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – computer system, one or more display generation components, first input device, and option user interface to perform the multiple detecting and displaying steps. computer system, one or more display generation components, first input device, and option user interface in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of multiple detecting and displaying functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The displaying limitation is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using the computer system, one or more display generation components, first input device, and option user interface to perform multiple detecting and displaying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US20170208241) in further view of Kim et al (US20180107360)
Examiner’s Statement
Claim 37 recites the following contingent limitation(s): “…detecting, via the first input device, a third input directed to the first input device; and in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device: in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied… in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied” The limitation(s) is/are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. The “in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device: in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied… in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied…” limitation(s) only needs to be performed if the first set of one or more criteria or second set of one or more criteria is satisfied. If the first set of one or more criteria or second set of one or more criteria does not meet the condition of being satisfied, then neither of the performing of the first or second operation(s) occur. Therefore, the BRI of the claim 37 requires the “at a computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and a first input device: detecting a first input...; in response to detecting the first input, displaying, …, an option user interface,...; while displaying the option user interface, detecting a second input...; after detecting the second input, detecting, via the first input device, a third input directed to the first input device; and in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device” limitation. Therefore, for art rejection purposes, claim 37 will be rejected under the BRI as just explained.
As per independent claim 37, Choi et al discloses a method comprising:
Computer system that is in communication with one or more display generation components and a first input device (FIG 1A-B, 2; 0062, 0065: teaches a system having a touch screen (form of first input device) that has display components)
detecting a first input including a movement that starts at a first location corresponding to the first input device and ends at a second location that is different from the first location; (FIG 6A-D; 0106-108: user moves their finger across the screen of the device (form of a first input device; see also FIG 22, 23A-B; 0191 )
in response to detecting the first input, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, an option user interface, including a plurality of selectable user interface objects corresponding to a respective plurality of operations that can be associated with the first input device (FIG 6D; shows an option user interface at the bottom; see also 23B, 0194)
while displaying the option user interface, detecting a second input selecting a respective selectable user interface object of the plurality of selectable user interface objects (0195, select object on UI)
detecting, via the first input device, a third input directed to the first input device; in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device: (FIG12-13A; 0147, 0149-0150: drag input on the screen is performed to set a timer to capture an image. Note: Choi also teaches in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, performing a first operation of the respective plurality of operations (FIG12-13A; 0147, 0149-0150))
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose …displaying, via the one or more display generation components, an option user interface, including a plurality of selectable user interface objects corresponding to a respective plurality of operations that can be associated with the first input device, while displaying the options option user interface, detecting a second input selecting a respective selectable user interface object of the plurality of selectable user interface objects; after detecting the second input, detecting, via the first input device, a third input directed to the first input device; and in response to detecting the third input directed to the first input device. However, Kim et al discloses an option user interface being displayed in form of a menu comprising multiple selectable user interface objects that appears after a preview image is displayed and the preview image is automatically analyzed. Each object in the menu corresponds to a setting that can be applied to a preview image being displayed. The user can rotate the menu until the desired object is selected. Once selected, the user can perform another input to take a photo using the selected camera settings. Thus, Kim also discloses a first operation of the plurality of operations is performed when determined a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied that includes a first criterion that is satisfied when the respective selectable user interface object that was selected by the second input corresponds to the first operation
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the disclosed explained features of Kim et al since it would have provided the benefit of a user can easily anticipate effects for capturing a best picture of a subject outputted on the current preview image through setting areas included in the variable capturing button.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-36 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, alone or by combination, teaches the claimed invention as a whole as disclosed by the combination of limitations that are presented in claim 1 and 36. The closest/best prior art that would read upon the claims is the combination of Choi et al and Kim et al. Choi et al discloses a user providing an input on a touch screen (first input device) and dragging their finger across the screen to load a camera application and an option user interface comprising selectable objects. After loading the camera application, the user can drag their finger on the screen again to set a timer to capture an image using the camera application. Once the user has dragged their finger from a first location to a second location on the screen, the timer will start and a image will taken when the timer expires. Kim et al discloses an option user interface being displayed in form of a menu comprising multiple selectable user interface objects that appears after a preview image is displayed and the preview image is automatically analyzed. Each object in the menu corresponds to a setting that can be applied to a preview image being displayed. The user can rotate the menu until the desired object is selected. Once selected, the user can perform another input to take a photo using the selected camera settings. However, when the claim limitations/claim invention was viewed as a whole, Choi et al and Kim et al or any other reference do not teach every feature/limitation/invention, individually or in combination. Thus, no prior art exists, individually or in combination, teaches each of the claimed inventions as a whole since the prior art fails to disclose or suggest each of the limitations together as claimed. Further, the Examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either in the prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known elements together as claimed. Therefore, the claims are allowable.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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 supervisor signing this action, William 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.
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights