DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the maximum color property threshold " and the limitation “the maximum color property threshold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner notes that claim 8 depends from claim 6, but if claim 8 depended from claim 7, the present rejection would be overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16, 18, 19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US-2003/0142140) in view of Chen (US-2023/0236550).
Regarding claim 1: Brown discloses a computer-implemented method for rendering a user interface on a display (figs 2-6 and [0014] of Brown), comprising: identifying a normal status indicator in response to identifying a normal state of a system (fig 4(54), [0066], and [0069] of Brown – windows are tinted for system failures, like 58, but are clear for normal operation, like 54; if no failures (i.e., normal status), none of the windows will be tinted); rendering the normal status indicator in a first location within the user interface, the normal status indicator comprising a first color with a first color property (fig 4(54) and [0066]-[0069] of Brown – rendered according to location(s) of corresponding windows with a normal color and color property); and rendering a background of the user interface, the background comprising pixels having the first color (fig 4, fig 5, [0069], and [0072]-[0073] of Brown – background rendered according to color settings and status).
Brown does not disclose wherein the pixels are rendered with a respective color property computed based on a distance from the normal status indicator; and animating the normal status indicator by periodically varying the first color property of the normal status indicator to generate a pulsating effect.
Chen discloses wherein the pixels are rendered with a respective color property computed based on a distance from the main indicator (figs 12A-12B, and [0438]-[0441] of Chen – color is based on factors, such as distance from the center (main) indicator (which ring, outer indicator position, and so on), moon phase, and so on); and animating the main indicator by periodically varying the first color property of the main indicator to generate a pulsating effect (figs 12A-12O, and [0440]-[0444] of Chen – periodically altering the color property of the main indicator according to moon phase, star field, and other properties desired by user).
Brown and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely dynamic user interface displays. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to render the pixels with a respective color property computed based on a distance from the main indicator, and animate the main indicator by periodically varying the first color property of the main indicator to generate a pulsating effect, as taught by Chen. By combination, the main indicator of Chen corresponds to the normal status indicator of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been to more readily indicate changes to the user, which can be more effectively performed using a visually changing indicator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown according to the relied-upon teachings of Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises selecting the respective color property of a first respective pixel at a first distance from a center of the normal status indicator higher than the respective color property of a second respective pixel that is farther away from the center of the normal status indicator than the first distance (fig 10D, fig 10F, figs 10J-10M, [0401], [0405], and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – in some conditions, the background is set so that the color properties of pixels at a first distance is higher than the color properties of pixels at a second distance). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises setting the respective color property of the pixels adjacent to an edge of the user interface different from the respective color property adjacent to the normal status indicator (figs 10J-10M(1016) and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – outer edge 1016 adjacent to the main indicator (inside 1016) set to a different color property; main indicator corresponds to normal status indicator as per combination with Brown). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises applying a radially extending fade effect from the normal status indicator, wherein a first pixel that is closer to a center of the normal status indicator has a first color property and a second pixel that is farther from the center of the normal status indicator has a second color property (figs 10J-10M and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – fades radially outward in three steps from center of main indicator to outside; main indicator portion (centermost circle) has different color property than outer circle and outermost edge; main indicator corresponds to normal status indicator as per combination with Brown). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4 (as rejected above), wherein the first color property comprises a first transparency level and the second color property comprises a second transparency level, wherein the first transparency level is higher than the second transparency level (fig 3 and [0064]-[0066] of Brown – different transparency levels for different levels of failure (or including zero failure) for each window and/or region of window).
Regarding claim 7: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein animating the normal status indicator further comprises varying the first color property of an image comprising the normal status indicator between a minimum color property threshold and a maximum color property threshold (fig 10D, fig 10F, figs 10H-10O, [0401], [0405], and [0408]-[0411] of Chen – depending on the state, a particular low color property and a particular high color property (thresholds) are set for the display). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6 (as rejected above), wherein the maximum color property threshold causes the image to be less visible than the minimum color property threshold (figs 2-4, [0062]-[0063], and [0071]-[0072] of Brown).
Regarding claim 10: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the color property comprises a transparency level or a selected color (figs 2-4, [0062], [0065], and [0069] of Brown).
Regarding claim 11: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10 (as rejected above), wherein the selected color is different from the first color when the pixel is a threshold distance from the normal status indicator (fig 10F, figs 10H-10M of Chen – as can be seen from the figures, the selected color change occurs at a specified (threshold) distance from the main indicator; main indicator corresponds to normal status indicator as per combination with Brown). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented of claim 10 (as rejected above), further comprising selecting the selected color based upon a degree of contrast from the first color (figs 2-3, and [0063]-[0066] of Brown – color based on contrast from first color so to be able to distinguish between the windows).
Regarding claim 13: Brown discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (fig 1(12,18) and [0052]-[0053] of Brown) to render a user interface on a display (figs 2-6 and [0014] of Brown), cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: identifying a normal status indicator in response to identifying a normal state of a system (fig 4(54), [0066], and [0069] of Brown – windows are tinted for system failures, like 58, but are clear for normal operation, like 54; if no failures (i.e., normal status), none of the windows will be tinted); rendering the normal status indicator in a first location within the user interface, the normal status indicator comprising a first color with a first color property (fig 4(54) and [0066]-[0069] of Brown – rendered according to location(s) of corresponding windows with a normal color and color property); and rendering a background of the user interface, the background comprising pixels having the first color (fig 4, fig 5, [0069], and [0072]-[0073] of Brown – background rendered according to color settings and status).
Brown does not disclose wherein the pixels are rendered with a respective color property computed based on a distance from the normal status indicator; and animating the normal status indicator by periodically varying the first color property of the normal status indicator to generate a pulsating effect.
Chen discloses wherein the pixels are rendered with a respective color property computed based on a distance from the main indicator (figs 12A-12B, and [0438]-[0441] of Chen – color is based on factors, such as distance from the center (main) indicator (which ring, outer indicator position, and so on), moon phase, and so on); and animating the main indicator by periodically varying the first color property of the main indicator to generate a pulsating effect (figs 12A-12O, and [0440]-[0444] of Chen – periodically altering the color property of the main indicator according to moon phase, star field, and other properties desired by user).
Brown and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely dynamic user interface displays. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to render the pixels with a respective color property computed based on a distance from the main indicator, and animate the main indicator by periodically varying the first color property of the main indicator to generate a pulsating effect, as taught by Chen. By combination, the main indicator of Chen corresponds to the normal status indicator of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been to more readily indicate changes to the user, which can be more effectively performed using a visually changing indicator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown according to the relied-upon teachings of Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14: Brown in view of Chen discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises selecting the respective color property of a first respective pixel at a first distance from a center of the normal status indicator different from the respective color property of a second respective pixel that is farther away from the center of the normal status indicator than the first distance (fig 10D, fig 10F, figs 10J-10M, [0401], [0405], and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – in some conditions, the background is set so that the color properties of pixels at a first distance is higher than the color properties of pixels at a second distance). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 15: Brown in view of Chen discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises setting the respective color property of the pixels adjacent to an edge of the user interface different from the respective color property adjacent to the normal status indicator (figs 10J-10M(1016) and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – outer edge 1016 adjacent to the main indicator (inside 1016) set to a different color property; main indicator corresponds to normal status indicator as per combination with Brown). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 16: Brown in view of Chen discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises applying a radially extending fade effect from the normal status indicator, wherein a first pixel that is closer to a center of the normal status indicator has a first color property and a second pixel that is farther from the center of the normal status indicator has a second color property (figs 10J-10M and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – fades radially outward in three steps from center of main indicator to outside; main indicator portion (centermost circle) has different color property than outer circle and outermost edge; main indicator corresponds to normal status indicator as per combination with Brown). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 18: Brown in view of Chen discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13 (as rejected above). Brown in view of Chen does not disclose wherein animating the normal status indicator further comprises varying the first color property of an image comprising the normal status indicator between a minimum color property threshold and a maximum color property threshold (fig 10D, fig 10F, figs 10H-10O, [0401], [0405], and [0408]-[0411] of Chen – depending on the state, a particular low color property and a particular high color property (thresholds) are set for the display). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 19: Brown in view of Chen discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18 (as rejected above), wherein the maximum color property threshold causes the image to be less visible than the minimum color property threshold (figs 2-4, [0062]-[0063], and [0071]-[0072] of Brown).
Regarding claim 21: Brown discloses a system (fig 1 and [0051] of Brown) comprising: a display (fig 1(24) and [0056] of Brown); a memory (fig 1(18) and [0053] of Brown); and a processor coupled to the memory that executes (fig 1(12) and [0052]-[0053] of Brown) a user interface application that renders a user interface on the display (figs 2-6 and [0014] of Brown) by performing the steps of: identifying a normal status indicator in response to identifying a normal state of a system (fig 4(54), [0066], and [0069] of Brown – windows are tinted for system failures, like 58, but are clear for normal operation, like 54; if no failures (i.e., normal status), none of the windows will be tinted); rendering the normal status indicator in a first location within the user interface, the normal status indicator comprising a first color with a first color property (fig 4(54) and [0066]-[0069] of Brown – rendered according to location(s) of corresponding windows with a normal color and color property); and rendering a background of the user interface, the background comprising pixels having the first color (fig 4, fig 5, [0069], and [0072]-[0073] of Brown – background rendered according to color settings and status).
Brown does not disclose wherein the pixels are rendered with a respective transparency level computed based on a distance from the normal status indicator; and animating the normal status indicator by periodically varying the first transparency level of the normal status indicator to generate a pulsating effect.
Chen discloses wherein the pixels are rendered with a respective transparency level computed based on a distance from the main indicator (figs 12A-12B, [0122], [0438]-[0441], and [0584] of Chen – transparency and color is based on factors, such as distance from the center (main) indicator (which ring, outer indicator position, and so on), moon phase, and so on); and animating the main indicator by periodically varying the first transparency level of the main indicator to generate a pulsating effect (figs 12A-12O, [0122], and [0440]-[0444] of Chen – periodically altering the transparency and color properties of the main indicator according to moon phase, star field, and other properties desired by user).
Brown and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely dynamic user interface displays. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to render the pixels with a respective transparency level computed based on a distance from the main indicator, and animate the main indicator by periodically varying the first transparency level of the main indicator to generate a pulsating effect, as taught by Chen. By combination, the main indicator of Chen corresponds to the normal status indicator of Brown. The motivation for doing so would have been to more readily indicate changes to the user, which can be more effectively performed using a visually changing indicator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown according to the relied-upon teachings of Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22: Brown in view of Chen discloses the system of claim 21 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises selecting the respective transparency level of a first respective pixel at a first distance from a center of the normal status indicator higher than the respective transparency level of a second respective pixel that is farther away from the center of the normal status indicator than the first distance (fig 10D, fig 10F, figs 10J-10M, [0122], [0401], [0405], and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – in some conditions, the background is set so that the transparency and color properties of pixels at a first distance is higher than the transparency and color properties of pixels at a second distance). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 21.
Regarding claim 23: Brown in view of Chen discloses the system of claim 21 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises setting the respective transparency level of the pixels adjacent to an edge of the user interface lower than the respective transparency level adjacent to the normal status indicator (figs 10J-10M(1016), [0122], and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – outer edge 1016 adjacent to the main indicator (inside 1016) set to a different transparency and color property; main indicator corresponds to normal status indicator as per combination with Brown). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 21.
Regarding claim 24: Brown in view of Chen discloses the system of claim 21 (as rejected above), wherein rendering the background of the user interface further comprises applying a radially extending fade effect from the normal status indicator, wherein a first pixel that is closer to a center of the normal status indicator has a higher transparency level than a second pixel that is farther from the center of the normal status indicator (figs 10J-10M, [0122], and [0408]-[0410] of Chen – fades radially outward in three steps from center of main indicator to outside; main indicator portion (centermost circle) has different transparency and color properties than outer circle and outermost edge; main indicator corresponds to normal status indicator as per combination with Brown). Brown and Chen are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 21.
7. Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US-2003/0142140) in view of Chen (US-2023/0236550), and in further view of Carrigan (US-2023/0343200).
Regarding claim 6: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as rejected above). Brown in view of Chen does not disclose, in response to detecting an alarm state of the system, replacing the user interface on the display with an alarm state user interface.
Carrigan discloses, in response to detecting an alarm state of the system, replacing the user interface on the display with an alarm state user interface (figs 8A-8D and [0320] of Carrigan – in an alarm/emergency state, the normal user interface (figs 8A-8C) is replaced with an alarm state user interface (fig 8D)).
Brown and Carrigan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely dynamic user interface displays. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the user interface on the display with an alarm state user interface in response to detecting an alarm state of the system, as taught by Carrigan. The suggestion for doing so would have been that alarm states need special and immediate handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown further according to the relied-upon teachings of Carrigan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17: Brown in view of Chen discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13 (as rejected above). Brown in view of Chen does not disclose, in response to detecting an alarm state of the system, replacing the user interface on the display with an alarm state user interface.
Carrigan discloses, in response to detecting an alarm state of the system, replacing the user interface on the display with an alarm state user interface (figs 8A-8D and [0320] of Carrigan – in an alarm/emergency state, the normal user interface (figs 8A-8C) is replaced with an alarm state user interface (fig 8D)).
Brown and Carrigan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely dynamic user interface displays. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the user interface on the display with an alarm state user interface in response to detecting an alarm state of the system, as taught by Carrigan. The suggestion for doing so would have been that alarm states need special and immediate handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown further according to the relied-upon teachings of Carrigan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
8. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US-2003/0142140) in view of Chen (US-2023/0236550), and in further view of Stack (WO-2023/219974-A2).
Regarding claim 9: Brown in view of Chen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (as rejected above). Brown in view of Chen does not disclose rendering the normal status indicator and the background after detecting a delay period from a last user interaction with the user interface.
Stack discloses rendering the normal status indicator and the background after detecting a delay period from a last user interaction with the user interface (figs 1I-11N, fig 12, [0314]-[0320], and [0322]-[0326] of Stack – after a certain time delay of no user interaction, the user interface returns to low-power mode).
Brown and Stack are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely control of user interfaces based on user interaction. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to render the normal status indicator and the background after detecting a delay period from a last user interaction with the user interface, as taught by Stack. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the computational load by returning to a default state when the user is not actively engaged with the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown further according to the relied-upon teachings of Stack to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20: Brown in view of Chen discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13 (as rejected above). Brown in view of Chen does not disclose rendering the normal status indicator and the background after detecting a delay period from a last user interaction with the user interface.
Stack discloses rendering the normal status indicator and the background after detecting a delay period from a last user interaction with the user interface (figs 1I-11N, fig 12, [0314]-[0320], and [0322]-[0326] of Stack – after a certain time delay of no user interaction, the user interface returns to low-power mode).
Brown and Stack are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely control of user interfaces based on user interaction. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to render the normal status indicator and the background after detecting a delay period from a last user interaction with the user interface, as taught by Stack. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the computational load by returning to a default state when the user is not actively engaged with the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brown further according to the relied-upon teachings of Stack to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights