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 .
Claims 1-31 filed on March 31, 2025 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
As to independent claim 1, claim 1 is a method of using claim that recites in part: “in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes lateral movement of the input device relative to a physical surface that the input device is touching, updating display of the cursor as moving based on the lateral movement of the input device on the physical surface; and in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes a change in orientation of the input device, performing a system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement” (emphasis added).
The above claim language recites a conditional limitation where the two recited conditional limitations are mutually exclusive. That is, the lateral movement of the input device is mutually exclusive with the change in orientation (i.e. rotation about an axis orthogonal to the surface) of the input device. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, the scope of method claim 1 requires performance of only one of the recited two mutually exclusive conditions. See MPEP 2111.04(II), Ex parte Schulhauser.
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.
Independent Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the preamble recites “A computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions that[,]” which subtends non-statutory subject matter, such as a signal. Moreover, Examiner is unable to locate in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure any language limiting the computer readable storage medium to only statutory embodiments.
Examiner respectfully recommends amending the claim 31 claim language to recite “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium…” in order limit the scope of claim 31 to statutory embodiments and remedy this infirmity.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp (US 2024/0103643 A1, Published on March 28, 2024).
As to claim 1, Sapp discloses a method, comprising: at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and an input device (Sapp at Fig. 1, computing device 102, display screen 104, and mouse 100):
while displaying, via the display generation component, a first user interface (Sapp at ¶ [0003] discloses “The input device allows a user to move an input pointer, such as cursor on a screen, and make selections in a graphical user interface (GUI) on the computer system”),
while a current cursor location for a cursor corresponding to the input device is at a first location of the first user interface (Sapp at Fig. 1, input pointer (cursor) 108):
in response to detecting first movement of the input device (Sapp at Fig. 1; ¶ [0036]):
in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes lateral movement of the input device relative to a physical surface that the input device is touching, updating display of the cursor as moving based on the lateral movement of the input device on the physical surface (Sapp at Fig. 1; ¶ [0003], [0036] discloses “A processor in the mouse 100 or in the computing device 102 can transmit the user induced movement of the mouse 100 to the cursor 108 on the display screen 104 of the computing device 102, thus controlling the cursor 108 on the display screen 104”); and
in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes a change in orientation of the input device, performing a system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement (Sapp at Fig. 3A; ¶ [0055] discloses “For example, in the resting mode shown in FIG. 3A, the processor can interpret a rotation of the mouse about its central vertical axis (e.g., an axis perpendicular to the support surface 306 in FIG. 3A), as detected by one or more sensors, including an IMU of the tilt sensor 326, as an input command to a computing device for scrolling through a menu displayed on a screen”).
As to claim 7, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first movement that includes a change in orientation of the input device comprises a rotation of the input device about an axis that is substantially perpendicular to the physical surface (Sapp at Fig. 3A, 7; ¶ [0055]).
As to claim 13, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first movement of the input device that includes a change in orientation of the input device comprises a change in orientation, in a first direction, of the input device about an axis that is substantially parallel to the physical surface (Sapp at Fig. 7).
As to claim 20, Sapp discloses the method of claim 13, including, while displaying a first user interface element in the first user interface and while the current cursor location for the cursor corresponding to the input device is directed to the first user interface element, in response to detecting a change in orientation of the input device about an axis that is substantially perpendicular to the physical surface, performing an operation related to the first user interface element (Sapp at Figs. 1, 7; ¶ [0036]).
As to claim 21,Sapp discloses the method of claim 20, wherein performing the operation related to the first user interface element comprises scrolling through the first user interface element (Sapp at Fig. 7; ¶ [0036]).
As to claim 22,Sapp discloses the method of claim 20, wherein performing the operation related to the first user interface element comprises adjusting (Sapp at Fig. 7; ¶ [0036]) a control (Sapp does not expressly disclose a control. However, Examiner takes an official notice that adjusting a GUI control is well-known in the art).
As to claim 23,Sapp discloses the method of claim 20, wherein performing the operation related to the first user interface element comprises adjusting (Sapp at Fig. 7; ¶ [0036]) a volume (Sapp does not expressly disclose a volume. However, Examiner takes an official notice that adjusting a GUI volume control is well-known in the art).
As to claim 24, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the input device comprises a symmetrical shape (Sapp at Fig. 1, 2, 7, in particular).
As to claim 25, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1, including, while detecting lateral movement of the input device: detecting a portion of the input device that is facing the display generation component and setting, without additional user input, the detected portion as a front of the input device (Examiner takes an official notice that 3-D position detection of user input devices is well-known in the art).
As to claim 27, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1.
Sapp does not expressly disclose that in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes a change in orientation of the input device: in accordance with a determination that that change in orientation of the input device is in a first direction, performing the system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement; and in accordance with a determination that that change in orientation of the input device is in a second direction, forgoing performing the system operation.
However, Examiner takes and official notice that this claim aspect is well-known in the art.
As to claim 28, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1.
Sapp does not expressly disclose in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes a change in orientation of the input device: in accordance with a determination that that change in orientation of the input device is in a clockwise direction, initiating performance of the system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement; and in accordance with a determination that that change in orientation of the input device is in a counterclockwise direction, forgoing initiating performance of the system operation.
However, Examiner takes and official notice that this claim aspect is well-known in the art.
As to claim 29, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1.
Sapp does not expressly disclose in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes a change in orientation of the input device: in accordance with a determination that that change in orientation of the input device is in a first respective direction, performing the system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement; and in accordance with a determination that that change in orientation of the input device is in a second respective direction, performing a second system operation, different from the system operation, that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement.
However, Examiner takes and official notice that this claim aspect is well-known in the art.
As to claim 30, Sapp discloses a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and an input device , comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions (Sapp at Figs 1, computing device 102, display screen 104, and mouse 100; Fig. 10; ¶ [0091]-[0092]) for:
while displaying, via the display generation component, a first user interface (Sapp at ¶ [0003] discloses “The input device allows a user to move an input pointer, such as cursor on a screen, and make selections in a graphical user interface (GUI) on the computer system”),
while a current cursor location for a cursor corresponding to the input device is at a first location of the first user interface (Sapp at Fig. 1, input pointer (cursor) 108):
in response to detecting first movement of the input device (Sapp at Fig. 1; ¶ [0036]):
in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes lateral movement of the input device relative to a physical surface that the input device is touching, updating display of the cursor as moving based on the lateral movement of the input device on the physical surface (Sapp at Fig. 1; ¶ [0003], [0036] discloses “A processor in the mouse 100 or in the computing device 102 can transmit the user induced movement of the mouse 100 to the cursor 108 on the display screen 104 of the computing device 102, thus controlling the cursor 108 on the display screen 104”); and
in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes a change in orientation of the input device, performing a system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement (Sapp at Fig. 3A; ¶ [0055] discloses “For example, in the resting mode shown in FIG. 3A, the processor can interpret a rotation of the mouse about its central vertical axis (e.g., an axis perpendicular to the support surface 306 in FIG. 3A), as detected by one or more sensors, including an IMU of the tilt sensor 326, as an input command to a computing device for scrolling through a menu displayed on a screen”).
As to claim 31, Sapp discloses a computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer system in communication with a display generation component and an input device, cause the computer system (Sapp at Figs 1, computing device 102, display screen 104, and mouse 100; Fig. 10; ¶ [0091]-[0092]) to:
while displaying, via the display generation component, a first user interface (Sapp at ¶ [0003] discloses “The input device allows a user to move an input pointer, such as cursor on a screen, and make selections in a graphical user interface (GUI) on the computer system”),
while a current cursor location for a cursor corresponding to the input device is at a first location of the first user interface (Sapp at Fig. 1, input pointer (cursor) 108):
in response to detecting first movement of the input device (Sapp at Fig. 1; ¶ [0036]):
in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes lateral movement of the input device relative to a physical surface that the input device is touching, update display of the cursor as moving based on the lateral movement of the input device on the physical surface (Sapp at Fig. 1; ¶ [0003], [0036] discloses “A processor in the mouse 100 or in the computing device 102 can transmit the user induced movement of the mouse 100 to the cursor 108 on the display screen 104 of the computing device 102, thus controlling the cursor 108 on the display screen 104”); and
in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes a change in orientation of the input device, perform a system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement (Sapp at Fig. 3A; ¶ [0055] discloses “For example, in the resting mode shown in FIG. 3A, the processor can interpret a rotation of the mouse about its central vertical axis (e.g., an axis perpendicular to the support surface 306 in FIG. 3A), as detected by one or more sensors, including an IMU of the tilt sensor 326, as an input command to a computing device for scrolling through a menu displayed on a screen”).1
Claims 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp (US 2024/0103643 A1, Published on March 28, 2024) in view of Vescovi (US 2015/0277559 A1, Published October 1, 2015).
As to claim 2, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing the system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement (Sapp at Figs. 7, 9, steps 948-952).
Sapp does not disclose displaying an application switching view that displays a plurality of representations of applications that correspond to recently open applications.
However, Vescovi does disclose an application switching view that displays a plurality of representations of applications that correspond to recently open applications (Viscovi at ¶ [0037] discloses “In some embodiments, rotating the dial control 310 scrolls through icons to invoke applications, through already open applications, or scrolls within an open application (e.g. to scroll a screen of the application or to select between objects, features, or other options within the application).”)
Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Vescovi discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Sapp the teachings of Vescovi for the predictable result of providing faster, more efficient methods and interfaces for interacting and/or controlling external electronic devices (Vescovi at ¶ [0005]).
As to claim 5, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1, further including, while the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to a respective application user interface displayed in the first user interface (Sapp at Fig. 1).
Sapp does not disclose in response to detecting fourth movement of the input device, in accordance with a determination that the fourth movement includes a change in orientation of the input device: in accordance with a determination that a respective application corresponding to the current cursor location is a first application user interface associated with a first application, performing a first operation for the first application; and in accordance with a determination that the respective application corresponding to the current cursor location is a second application user interface associated with a second application, performing a second operation, different from the first operation, for the second application.
However, Vescovi does disclose in response to detecting fourth movement of the input device, in accordance with a determination that the fourth movement includes a change in orientation of the input device: in accordance with a determination that a respective application corresponding to the current cursor location is a first application user interface associated with a first application, performing a first operation for the first application; and in accordance with a determination that the respective application corresponding to the current cursor location is a second application user interface associated with a second application, performing a second operation, different from the first operation, for the second application (Viscovi at ¶ [0037]).
Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Vescovi discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Sapp the teachings of Vescovi for the predictable result of providing faster, more efficient methods and interfaces for interacting and/or controlling external electronic devices (Vescovi at ¶ [0005]).
Claims 3, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp (US 2024/0103643 A1, Published on March 28, 2024) in view of Chu (2017/0153771 A1, Published June 1, 2017) and Oakley (US 2006/0132438 A1, Published June 22,2006).
As to claim 3, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1.
Sapp does not expressly disclose further including, while the current cursor location is at a second location of the first user interface, in response to detecting second movement of the input device: in accordance with a determination that the second movement includes lateral movement of the input device relative to the physical surface that the input device is touching, updating display of the cursor as moving based on the lateral movement of the input device on the physical surface.
However, Chu does disclose while the current cursor location is at a second location of the first user interface, in response to detecting second movement of the input device: in accordance with a determination that the second movement includes lateral movement of the input device relative to the physical surface that the input device is touching, updating display of the cursor as moving based on the lateral movement of the input device on the physical surface (Chu at Fig. 6, in particular; ¶ [0042], in particular)
Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Chu discloses a comparable input device (Chu at ¶ [0032], [0037] discloses a mouse) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Sapp the teachings of Chu for the predictable result of obviating input options that are tedious (Chu at ¶ [0002], [0005]).
The combination of Sapp and Chu does not expressly disclose in accordance with a determination that the second movement includes a change in orientation of the input device, performing an operation associated with content that is displayed at the second location of the first user interface.
However, Oakley does disclose in accordance with a determination that the second movement includes a change in orientation of the input device, performing an operation associated with content that is displayed at the second location of the first user interface (Oakley at Fig. 4).
The combination of Sapp and Chu discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Oakley discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Sapp and Chu the teachings of Oakley for the predictable result of capturing motion in more than two degrees of freedom at a time (Oakley at ¶ [0019]).
As to claim 26, the combination of Sapp, Chu, and Oakley discloses the method of claim 1, including: detecting, via the input device, a first portion of a user input for selecting a first object; and in response to detecting the first portion of the user input for selecting the first object, in accordance with a determination that a second portion of the user input comprises movement of the input device, moving the first object in the first user interface in accordance with the second portion of the user input; and in response to detecting an end of the user input, displaying the first object at its current location in the first user interface (Oakley at Figs. 3-4).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp (US 2024/0103643 A1, Published on March 28, 2024) in view of Yasui (US 2013/0104079 A1, Published April 25, 2013) and Oakley (US 2006/0132438 A1, Published June 22,2006).
As to claim 4, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1.
Sapp does not expressly disclose that the first location of the first user interface corresponds to a system user interface of the computer system displayed in the first user interface; performing the system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement comprises displaying an application switching view that displays a plurality of representations of applications that correspond to recently open applications; and the method further includes: while the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to an application user interface displayed in the first user interface, in response to detecting third movement of the input device: in accordance with a determination that the third movement includes a change in orientation of the input device, performing an operation for an application corresponding to the application user interface displayed in the first user interface at the current cursor location.
However, Yasui does disclose that the first location of the first user interface corresponds to a system user interface of the computer system displayed in the first user interface; performing the system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement comprises displaying an application switching view that displays a plurality of representations of applications that correspond to recently open applications (Yasui at Figs. 2, 4, in particular).2
Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Yasui discloses a comparable input device (Yasui at Fig. 6) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Sapp the teachings of Yasui for the predictable result of providing a radial menu (Yasui at ¶ [0008]).
Oakley discloses the method further includes: while the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to an application user interface displayed in the first user interface, in response to detecting third movement of the input device: in accordance with a determination that the third movement includes a change in orientation of the input device, performing an operation for an application corresponding to the application user interface displayed in the first user interface at the current cursor location (Oakley at Fig. 4).
The combination of Sapp and Yasui discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Oakley discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Sapp and Yasui the teachings of Oakley for the predictable result of capturing motion in more than two degrees of freedom at a time (Oakley at ¶ [0019]).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp (US 2024/0103643 A1, Published on March 28, 2024) in view of Chu (2017/0153771 A1, Published June 1, 2017).
As to claim 6, Sapp discloses the method of claim 1, further including: while the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to respective content of a respective application displayed in the first user interface, in response to detecting fifth movement of the input device, in accordance with a determination that the fifth movement includes a change in orientation of the input device (Sapp at Figs. 1, 7; ¶ [0055]):
Sapp does not disclose in accordance with a determination that the respective content corresponding to the current cursor location is first content, performing one or more functions for the first content; and in accordance with a determination that that respective content corresponding to the current cursor location is second content that is different from the first content, performing one or more functions for the second content.
However, Chu discloses in accordance with a determination that the respective content corresponding to the current cursor location is first content, performing one or more functions for the first content; and in accordance with a determination that that respective content corresponding to the current cursor location is second content that is different from the first content, performing one or more functions for the second content (Chu at Figs. 3, 8, in particular).
Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Chu discloses a comparable input device (Chu at ¶ [0032], [0037] discloses a mouse) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Sapp the teachings of Chu for the predictable result of obviating input options that are tedious (Chu at ¶ [0002], [0005]).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp (US 2024/0103643 A1, Published on March 28, 2024) in view of Ishii (US 2015/0007106 A1, Published January 1, 2015).
As to claim 8, Sapp discloses the method of claim 7.
Sapp does not disclose that performing the system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement includes displaying one or more respective representations of respective applications, wherein the one or more respective representations of respective applications are displayed proximate to the current cursor location.
However, Ishii does disclose that performing the system operation that is determined based at least in part on an amount of the change in orientation of the first movement includes displaying one or more respective representations of respective applications, wherein the one or more respective representations of respective applications are displayed proximate to the current cursor location (Ishii at Figs. 3-4).
Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Ishii discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Sapp the teachings of Ishii for the predictable result of providing a menu that a user can comfortably operate (Ishii at ¶ [0123]).
Claims 9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp and Ishii as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Yasui (US 2013/0104079 A1, Published April 25, 2013).
As to claim 9, the combination of Sapp and Ishii discloses the method of claim 8.
The combination does not expressly disclose after detecting the first movement that includes a change in orientation of the input device, detecting additional movement that includes a further change in orientation of the input device; and in response to detecting the additional movement: ceasing to display a first representation of the one or more representations; and displaying one or more additional representations for one or more additional applications proximate to the current cursor location.
However, Yasui does disclose after detecting the first movement that includes a change in orientation of the input device, detecting additional movement that includes a further change in orientation of the input device; and in response to detecting the additional movement: ceasing to display a first representation of the one or more representations; and displaying one or more additional representations for one or more additional applications proximate to the current cursor location (Yasui at Figs. 2-4).
The combination of Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Yasui discloses a comparable input device (Yasui at Fig. 6) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Sapp the teachings of Yasui for the predictable result of providing a radial menu (Yasui at ¶ [0008]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Sapp, Ishii, and Yasui discloses the method of claim 9.
The combination does not disclose in response to detecting the additional movement, generating one or more haptic outputs corresponding to the additional movement of the input device. However, Examiner takes an official notice that providing haptic feedback to input devices such as computer mice, joysticks, and video game controllers is well-known in the art. Hence, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill to provide such haptic feedback for the well-known purpose of providing tactile confirmation to a user.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp and Ishii as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Agnoli (US 2017/0192627 A1, Published July 7, 2017).
As to claim 11, the combination of Sapp and Ishii discloses the method of claim 8.
The combination does not expressly disclose in response to detecting the first movement that includes a rotation of the input device about an axis that is substantially perpendicular to the physical surface, while displaying the one or more respective representations of respective applications, displaying an indication of a currently selected representation of a respective application, including: in accordance with the first movement having a first amount of rotation, displaying the indication of the currently selected representation as a first representation of a first application; and in accordance with the first movement having a second amount of rotation that is greater than the first amount of rotation, displaying the indication of the currently selected representation as a second representation of a second application.
However, Agnoli does disclose in response to detecting the first movement that includes a rotation of the input device about an axis that is substantially perpendicular to the physical surface, while displaying the one or more respective representations of respective applications, displaying an indication of a currently selected representation of a respective application, including: in accordance with the first movement having a first amount of rotation, displaying the indication of the currently selected representation as a first representation of a first application; and in accordance with the first movement having a second amount of rotation that is greater than the first amount of rotation, displaying the indication of the currently selected representation as a second representation of a second application (Agnoli at Figs. 7-13).
The combination of Sapp and Ishii discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Agnoli discloses a comparable input device (Agnoli at Fig. 3) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Sapp and Ishii the teachings of Agnoli for the predictable result of improving the speed of user interactions (Agnoli at ¶ [0004])
As to claim 12, the combination of Sapp, Ishii, and Agnoli discloses the method of claim 11, including, in accordance with a determination that a respective representation of a respective application is the currently selected representation, displaying an application window of the respective application in a foreground of the first user interface (Ishii at Fig. 4).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp (US 2024/0103643 A1, Published on March 28, 2024) in view of Yasui (US 2013/0104079 A1, Published April 25, 2013).
As to claim 14, Sapp discloses the method of claim 13, further including, prior to detecting the first movement of the input device, displaying one or more application windows for one or more applications in a first layout in the first user interface, wherein, in accordance with a determination that the first movement includes the change in orientation of the input device in the first direction about the axis that is substantially parallel to the physical surface (Sapp at Figs. 1, 7; ¶ [0036]).
Sapp does not expressly disclose performing the system operation includes updating the first user interface to display the one or more application windows in a second layout that is different than the first layout.
However, Yasui discloses performing the system operation includes updating the first user interface to display the one or more application windows in a second layout that is different than the first layout (Yasui at Figs. 1-4).
Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Yasui discloses a comparable input device (Yasui at Fig. 6) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Sapp the teachings of Yasui for the predictable result of providing a radial menu (Yasui at ¶ [0008]).
Claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sapp (US 2024/0103643 A1, Published on March 28, 2024) in view of Walkin (US 2020/0326839 A1, Published October 15, 2020).
As to claim 15, Sapp discloses the method of claim 13.
Sapp does not disclose while displaying, via the display generation component, a plurality of application windows in the first user interface: while the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to a first application window of the plurality of application windows, detecting movement of the input device that moves the current cursor location to a location corresponding to a second application window of the plurality of application windows; and in response to detecting the movement of the input device such that the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to a second application window of the plurality of application windows, updating focus corresponding to the cursor to the second application window.
However, Walkin does disclose while displaying, via the display generation component, a plurality of application windows in the first user interface: while the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to a first application window of the plurality of application windows, detecting movement of the input device that moves the current cursor location to a location corresponding to a second application window of the plurality of application windows; and in response to detecting the movement of the input device such that the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to a second application window of the plurality of application windows, updating focus corresponding to the cursor to the second application window (Walkin at ¶ [0388]).
Sapp discloses a base input device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Walkin discloses a comparable input device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Sapp the teachings of Walkin for the predictable result of providing multitasking capability on an electronic device (Walkin at ¶ [0002]).
As to claim 16, the combination of Sapp and Walkin discloses the method of claim 15, including: after detecting the change in orientation, in the first direction, of the input device about the axis that is substantially parallel to the physical surface, detecting sixth movement of the input device that includes tilting the input device relative to the axis that is substantially parallel to the physical surface; and in response to detecting the sixth movement, updating focus of the cursor to a respective application window of the plurality of application windows based at least in part on an amount of tilting of the sixth movement (Sapp at Fig. 3).
As to claim 17, the combination of Sapp and Walkin discloses the method of claim 15, including: after detecting the change in orientation, in the first direction, of the input device about the axis that is substantially parallel to the physical surface, detecting seventh movement that includes lateral movement of the input device; and in response to detecting the seventh movement, updating focus of the cursor to a respective application window of the plurality of application windows based at least in part on an amount of lateral movement of the seventh movement (Walkin at Fig. 4A; ¶ [0388]).
As to claim 18, the combination of Sapp and Walkin discloses the method of claim 15, including while displaying, via the display generation component, the plurality of application windows in the first user interface: while the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to a first application window of the plurality of application windows, visually emphasizing display of the first application window; and in response to detecting movement of the input device such that the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to a second application window of the plurality of application windows, visually emphasizing display of the second application window (Walkin at Fig. 4A; ¶ [0388]).
As to claim 19, the combination of Sapp and Walkin discloses the method of claim 15, including: after detecting the change in orientation, in the first direction, of the input device about the axis that is substantially parallel to the physical surface, while the current cursor location is at a location corresponding to a respective application window of the plurality of application windows, detecting a change in orientation, in a second direction different from the first direction, of the input device about the axis that is substantially parallel to the physical surface; and in response to detecting the change in orientation, in the second direction, of the input device about the axis that is substantially parallel to the physical surface, displaying the respective application window of the plurality of application windows in a foreground of the first user interface (Walkin at Fig. 4A; ¶ [0388]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sanjiv D Patel whose telephone number is (571)270-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/Sanjiv D. Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
01/29/2026
1 See also Oakley at Fig. 5, mouse 510; ¶ [0027].
2 See also, for example, Walkin (US 2020/0326839 A1, Published October 20, 2020) at ¶ [0388] which discloses “In response to the input that corresponds to the request to display the application-switcher user interface, the device displays the application-switcher user interface which includes representations of all recently open applications that are saved to memory, including the first application (e.g., a full-screen window, or a split-screen window) and all applications in the stack of slide-over applications (e.g., the second application and the third application). This is illustrated in FIGS. 4A12, 4A18, and 4A34, for example.”