DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed January 17, 2025 via preliminary amendment. Claims 2-14 are currently pending. Claim 1 is canceled and claims 2-14 are newly presented.
Specification
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. None of the claim language is directed towards resources and whether or not they are constrained. Instead, the invention is directed towards lighting parameters and appearances of user interface elements/objects.
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.
Claims 2-14 are 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.
Claim 2 recites “in response to detecting the change in the lighting parameter changing, via the display device, an appearance of the user interface element based on the change in the lighting parameter and the color of the computer system” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the appearance change requires both a change in the lighting parameter and a change in the color of the computer system, or if it requires a change in the lighting parameter and separately based on the color of the computer system. Moreover, it is unclear how the computer system color would be changed to trigger such a change in the appearance of the user interface element. Claims 13 and 14 recite similar language and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claims 3-12 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 2, as rejected above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “at a computer system…” and the limitation concludes with a semi-colon (“;”). This appears to be a grammatical issue and should be followed by a colon, if the claim is to indicate that the “displaying” and “detecting” steps are part of the computer system. Otherwise, the method can comprise and be implemented upon “a computer system”.
Claim 12 recites “the method” and this appears to be a typographical error and should read “The method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pance et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0079426), and further in view of Mori Atsuya (JP 2009-158994A; machine translation provided by Google Patents; hereinafter, “Mori”).
As per claim 2, Pance further teaches a method, comprising:
at a computer system that is in communication with a display device and one or more input devices (See Pance Figs. 1C-1F and paras. [0033-37], [0040], and [0042]: various types of light sensors used in the altered user experience lighting effects. The sensors can be positioned around the display screen);
displaying, via the display device, a user interface element, wherein:
the user interface element includes a simulated reflection based on one or more lighting parameters (See Pance Figs. 3A-3E and paras. [0042] and [0045-49]: screen displays various UI objects, windows, icons, images, etc.);
detecting, via the one or more input devices, a change in a lighting parameter (See Pance paras. [0033-36] and [0059]: various sensors that can provide altered user experience effects based on light profiles); and
in response to detecting the change in the lighting parameter changing, via the display device, an appearance of the user interface element based on the change in the lighting parameter [and the color of the computer system] (See Pance Figs. 3A-3E and paras. [0042-46]: altering user experience effects based on changes in light sensors and other variables).
However, while Pance teaches various lighting simulations, Pance does not explicitly teach or suggest device color-based appearances in the user interface.
Mori teaches the user interface element is a simulated material with an appearance based on a color of the computer system (See Mori paras. [0004-06] and [0056-58]: background image (wallpaper) can be based on the exterior color of the device itself. For example, “[w]hen it is determined that the exterior color is blue, the blue casing wallpaper and ringtone data are read from the memory 105, respectively.” When it “determines that the exterior color is red… the wallpaper and ringtone data for the red housing are read from the memory 105, written in the wallpaper display data storage unit and the ringtone data storage unit, respectively, and set (step S14).” Therefore, device color determines interface element appearance).
Additionally, Pance and Mori together thus teach that the appearance of the user interface element is changed based on the change in the lighting parameter and the color of the computer system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the device lighting of Pance with the device colors of Mori. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose adjusting colors and display of UI content and images based on different factors and Mori further enhances the user experience effects of Pance by increasing the customization options available to the user, and tailoring the user to a more specific user experience with which they may be able to seamlessly recognize and personalize based on their specific device.
As per claim 3, Pance/Mori further teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the user interface element includes one or more interactive elements (See Pance para. [0042]: “the effects applied to the images in a computing system may be application specific, applied to any open window on the desktop of the computing system, applied to user specified windows, icons and/or images, and so on.”).
As per claim 5, Pance/Mori further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the one or more interactive elements includes content (See Pance para. [0042]: “the effects applied to the images in a computing system may be application specific, applied to any open window on the desktop of the computing system, applied to user specified windows, icons and/or images, and so on.”)..
As per claim 6, Pance/Mori further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the change in the lighting parameter is based on ambient lighting conditions (See Pance paras. [0035-36] and [0061]: environmental lighting measured in a variety of ways to affect lighting profile and user experience).
As per claim 7, Pance/Mori further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the ambient lighting conditions include a color temperature (See Pance para. [0044]: “determine the ambient light white point temperature or to determine the type of light and provide a color profile that may match the ambient light”).
As per claim 8, Pance/Mori further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the ambient lighting conditions include a time of day (See Pance Figs. 3B and 3C and paras. [0046-47]: “the displayed image may also be altered to reflect the time of day. In one example, the displayed image may switch from a day view of a scene to a night view of a scene as the ambient light dims. The computing system may determine the time of day based on at least light intensity measurements from the sensors and optionally, time of day information provided by the computing system”).
As per claim 9, Pance/Mori further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the change in the lighting parameter is based on a change in lighting direction (See Pance paras. [0043] and [0060-61]: direction of the light source can change and determine the lighting effect on the UI).
As per claim 10, Pance/Mori further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the one or more input devices include an optical sensor and the change in the lighting parameter is detected using the optical sensor (See Pance Figs. 1C-1F and paras. [0033-37]: various types of light sensors used in the altered user experience lighting effects).
As per claim 11, Pance/Mori further teaches the method of claim 2, the change in the lighting parameter is based on a change in lighting intensity (See Pance paras. [0036] and [0060-61]: light intensity measurements to determine lighting effects).
As per claim 13, the claim is directed to a computer system that implements the same features as the method of claim 2, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Pance/Mori teaches a computer system, comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for implementing said method (See Pance paras. [0027-29]; see also Mori paras. [0031-38]).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed to a computer readable storage medium that implements the same features as the method of claim 2, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Pance/Mori teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a computer system in communication with a display device and one or more input devices, cause the computer system to perform said method (See Pance para. [0028] ; see also Mori paras. [0031-38]).)
Claim 4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pance/Mori as applied above, and further in view of Dunnigan (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0251460)
As per claim 4, Pance/Mori teaches the method of claim 3. However, while Pance/Mori teaches “different windows, icons and/or images, and so on” (See Pance para. [0042]), Pance/Mori does not explicitly teach a button.
Dunnigan teaches wherein the one or more interactive elements includes a button (See Dunnigan paras. [0069-72]: GUI effects, including the lighting effects of Pance/Mori, can apply to all aspects of a graphical user interface, including buttons).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the device lighting of Pance/Mori with the buttons of Dunnigan. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose simulated lighting effects on GUI objects and Dunnigan further expands the use of real world characteristics “to improve the user experience with the computer interface” while anchoring the effects into a surrounding environment in a variety of ways using common interface objects (See Dunnigan paras. [0010] and [0063]).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pance/Mori as applied above, and further in view of Kahn (U.S. Patent 8,988,439 B1; hereinafter, “Kahn”).
As per claim 12, Pance teaches the method of claim 2. However, while Pance discloses the direction of the light source, Pance does not explicitly teach device movement.
Kahn teaches wherein the change in the lighting parameter is detected based on movement of the computer system (See Kahn Figs. 1 and 4 and cols. 2:17-31 and 4:4-67 to 5:1-8: tilt sensors to affect user interface objects, including virtual light source and shadows that can be positioned based on rotation/tilts of the device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the device lighting of Pance/Mori with the device rotation of Kahn. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose simulated lighting effects based on device positions relative to a light source and Kahn further enhances the user experience effects of Pance/Mori by providing users with “better quality, more features, and higher levels of realism from their" device(s) (See Kahn col. 1:20-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights