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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of preliminary amendment in which claims 1 – 20 are presented. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffery Roger Stafford (Publication number: US 2012/0272179 A1), hereafter Stafford, in view of Berman et al; (Publication number: US 2022/0054172 A1), hereafter Berman.
Regarding claim 1:
Stafford discloses a method (Stafford ABSTRACT; Figure 11) comprising:
at a first electronic device (Stafford 2A 110C) with one or more processors (Stafford Figure 10 1012) and non-transitory memory (Stafford Figure 10 1034); while a first gaze is direction is directed to a first screen (Stafford Figure 11 1102 – when POG is directed to display 110c),
displaying content on the first screen (Stafford Figure 2A see content windows displayed on 110C);
displaying a cursor on the first screen in a first manner (Stafford Figure 2A – an initial position of cursor 204 displayed on screen 110c); and
while a second gaze direction is directed to the second screen (Stafford Figure 11 1102 – when POG is directed to display 110a):
in response to detecting the second gaze direction to the second screen, displaying the cursor on the second screen (Stafford Figure 11 1108 and Figure 2A - the cursor 204 is displayed on 110a in response to POG and distance threshold);
Stafford does not disclose: detecting association of the content with the cursor; and in response to detecting association of the content with the cursor, displaying the cursor on the first screen in a second manner; and while in the gaze direction is directed to the second screen displaying the screen in the second manner; detecting a disassociation of the content with the cursor; and in response to detecting disassociation of the content with the cursor, displaying the cursor on the second screen in the first manner.
However, Berman discloses systems and methods for direct image manipulation. More particularly, Berman discloses:
detecting association of the content with the cursor (Berman [0055 - 0056] border region 104 allows user to invoke “grabbing hand” cursor 23); and
in response to detecting association of the content with the cursor, displaying the cursor on the first screen in a second manner (Berman Figure 12 – cursor 23 is changed to grabbing hand 23 from cursor 20); and
while a direction is directed to the second screen displaying the screen in the second manner (Berman Figure 12 cursor 23 – [0055 – 0057] a grab hand gesture is maintained during drag and drop function);
detecting a disassociation of the content with the cursor (Berman [0057] occurs when image is “dropped” into place); and
in response to detecting disassociation of the content with the cursor, displaying the cursor on the second screen in the first manner (Berman Figure 11A – 11C; implied when drag and drop function is completed; cursor displayed as in Figure 11A 20).
It would have been obvious to modify Stafford to include detecting association of the content with the cursor; and in response to detecting association of the content with the cursor, displaying the cursor on the first screen in a second manner; and while in the gaze direction is directed to the second screen displaying the screen in the second manner; detecting a disassociation of the content with the cursor; and in response to detecting disassociation of the content with the cursor, displaying the cursor on the second screen in the first manner, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to provide feedback to the user of the relevant function being implemented.
Regarding claim 2:
Stafford (in view of Berman) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the content on the second screen is performed in response to detecting the second gaze direction on the second screen (Stafford Figure 2A POG directed to screen 110a while performing drag and drop of Berman).
Regarding claim 3:
Stafford (in view of Berman) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the content on the second screen is performed in response to detecting disassociation of the content with the cursor (disclosed in combination based on Berman [0057] occurs when image is “dropped” into place).
Regarding claim 4:
Stafford (in view of Berman) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the content on the second screen includes transmitting the content to a second electronic device (disclosed in combination by Stafford Figure 11 1108 and Berman drag and drop function [0055- 0057]).
Regarding claim 5:
Stafford (in view of Berman) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to displaying the cursor on the second screen, ceasing to display the cursor on the first screen (implied by Figure 2A cursor on 110a and Figure 11 1108).
Regarding claim 6:
Stafford (in view of Berman) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to displaying the content on the second screen, ceasing to display the content on the first screen (implied by drag and drop function [0055 – 0057] when content is dropped to second screen 110a).
Regarding claim 7:
Stafford (in view of Berman) disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising, while the first gaze direction is directed to the first screen: detecting selection of the content; and in response to detecting selection of the content, displaying a selection indicator on the first screen in a first manner (Stafford [0043] cursor is displayed in the first manner when selection occurs – the user moves pointer 20 to GUI window).
Regarding claim 8:
Stafford (in view of Berman) discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising, while the first gaze direction is directed to the first screen, in response to detecting association of the content with the cursor, displaying the selection indicator on the first screen in a second manner (Stafford [0055] grabbing hand indicator is displayed when the drag and drop function is invoked).
Regarding claim 9:
Stafford (in view of Berman) discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising, while the second gaze direction is directed to the second screen, in response to detecting disassociation of the content with the cursor, displaying the selection indicator on the second screen in the first manner (disclosed in combination when Stafford [0043][0057]; cursor is returned to indicator 20 from grab hand after drag and drop function is completed).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and additional Stafford Figure 10 1034; [0079]).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claims 5 and 6.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7063. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 9 July 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights