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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2014/0240248).
In regard to claim 1, Han et al. teach a method comprising: presenting, by an electronic device, a user interface (UI) on a surface, the UI comprising a first user interface element and a second user interface element (fig. 6A paragraph 97, plurality of icons 633); obtaining sensor data from at least one of a camera or a depth sensor of the electronic device (paragraph 36); determining, based on the sensor data, that the user has positioned a finger (i) within a first distance range from the surface and (ii) in proximity with the first user interface element (paragraph 98); responsive to determining that the user has positioned the finger (i) within the first distance range from the surface and (ii) in proximity with the first user interface element, modifying a visual characteristic of at least one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element (paragraph 98, increase size of the predetermined icon).
In regard to claim 2, Han et al. teach wherein modifying a visual characteristic of at least one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element comprises: changing a size of the first user interface element (fig. 6A).
In regard to claim 3, Han et al. teach wherein modifying a visual characteristic of at least one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element comprises: changing a size of the second user interface element (fig. 6A, Han et al. teach modifying the size of all the elements).
In regard to claim 4, Han et al. teach wherein modifying a visual characteristic of at least one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element comprises: moving the first user interface element relative to the second user interface element (fig. 6A, Han et al. teach rearranging the icons in response to the input object).
In regard to claim 5, Han et al. teach wherein modifying a visual characteristic of at least one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element comprises: moving the second user interface element relative to the first user interface element (fig. 6A, Han et al. teach rearranging the icons in response to the input object).
In regard to claim 8, Han et al. teach subsequent to determining that the user has positioned the finger (i) within the first distance range from the surface and (ii) in proximity with the first user interface element, determining that the user has moved the finger in a first direction; and responsive to determining that the user has moved the finger in the first direction, moving the first user interface element in the first direction (see fig. 4, Han et al. teach as the user moves the finger the cursor follows the finger position).
In regard to claim 9, Han et al. teach determining, based on the sensor data, that the user has moved the finger towards the surface; and responsive to determining that the user has moved the finger towards the surface, performing a zoom in operation with respect to the VI (figs. 4-6. As the user moves the finger toward the interface the object increases in size. The increase in size is a zoom operation).
Claim 17 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Woolley et al. (US 2009/0219255).
In regard to claims 6 and 18, Han et al. teach subsequent to determining that the user has positioned the finger (i) within the first distance range from the surface and (ii) in proximity with the first user interface element, determining that the user has repositioned the finger within a second distance range from the surface, wherein the second distance range less than the first distance range (fig. 4) but does not teach and responsive to determining that the user has repositioned the finger within the second distance range from the surface, refraining from modifying the visual characteristic of the at least one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element based on the repositioning of the finger.
Woolley et al. teach responsive to determining that the user has repositioned the finger within the second distance range from the surface, refraining from modifying the visual characteristic of the at least one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element based on the repositioning of the finger (paragraph 76, Woolley et al. teach increasing the size of the icon to a maximum size and refraining from increasing it any further as the user approaches the screen).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of user interfaces.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Han et al. with the icon size of Woolley et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Han et al. with the icon size of Woolley et al. because the increasing and decreasing the size of the icon, as shown in Woolley et al., would work equally as well in the apparatus of Han et al. as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the method of Woolley et al. would work predictably and could be chosen based on factors such as screen size, user preferences, etc.
In regard to claim 7, Han et al. teach subsequent to determining that the user has repositioned the finger within the second distance range from the surface, determining that the user has touched the finger on the surface; and responsive to determining that the user has touched the finger on the surface, performing one or more first operations associated with the first user interface element (paragraph 80, call function).
In regard to claim 19, Woolley et al. teach subsequent to determining that the user has positioned the finger within the second distance range from the surface, determining that the user has repositioned the finger outside the second distance range from the surface; and responsive to determining that the user has repositioned the finger outside the second distance range from the surface, ceasing to refrain from modifying the visual characteristic of the at least one of the first user interface element or the second user interface element (paragraph 76, Woolley et al. teach the icon growing smaller to a point where it will no longer grow smaller).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Cho (US 2014/0258932).
In regard to claim 10, Han et al. teach all the elements of claim 10 except determining, based on the sensor data, that the user has moved the finger in a first direction along the VI; and responsive to determining that the user has moved the finger in the first direction along the VI, performing a scroll operation on the VI in the first direction.
Cho teaches determining, based on the sensor data, that the user has moved the finger in a first direction along the VI; and responsive to determining that the user has moved the finger in the first direction along the VI, performing a scroll operation on the VI in the first direction (fig. 1A and paragraph 32).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of user interfaces.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Han et al. with the scroll operation of Cho. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Han et al. with the scroll operation of Cho because the scroll operation of Cho would allow the user to efficiently navigate the screen in a vertical direction.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Ton et al. (US 2014/0223385).
In regard to claim 11, Han et al. teach all the elements of claim 11 except determining, based on the sensor data, that the user has moved the finger away from the surface; and responsive to determining that the user has moved the finger away from the surface, performing a zoom out operation with respect to the VI.
Ton et al. teach determining, based on the sensor data, that the user has moved the finger away from the surface; and responsive to determining that the user has moved the finger away from the surface, performing a zoom out operation with respect to the VI (fig. 9 and paragraph 58).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of user interfaces.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Han et al. with the zoom operation of Ton et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Han et al. with the zoom operation of Ton et al. because the zoom operation of Ton et al. would work equally as well in the apparatus of Han et al. as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the zoom operation of Ton et al. would provide predictable results and an intuitive method of operating the interface.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Inoue (US 2023/0260079).
In regard to claim 20, Han et al. teach all the elements of claim 19 except wherein: the display device is a laser projector; the displaying is projecting using the laser projector; and the UI is a virtual interface (VI).
Inoue teaches wherein: the display device is a laser projector (paragraph 107); the displaying is projecting using the laser projector; and the UI is a virtual interface (VI) (fig. 1).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of user interfaces.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Han et al. with the laser projector of Inoue. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Han et al. with the laser projector of Inoue because the projector of Inoue would allow for a larger display area which would be useful in group environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or make obvious a boundary region and continuing to indicate the finger is in proximity with the first user interface element in combination with the claim’s other features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights