Patent Application 18165592 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANIMATED COMPUTER

Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANIMATED COMPUTER GENERATED DISPLAY

Application Information

Invention Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANIMATED COMPUTER GENERATED DISPLAY
Application Number: 18165592
Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-07T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-02-07T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 715
National Sub-Class: 840000
Examiner Employee Number: 93887
Art Unit: 2174
Tech Center: 2100

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 18 April 2025. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. No claim has been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.

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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that reference Mierau does not teach the limitations of Applicant’s claims. The
examiner respectfully disagrees. Mierau clearly teaches an animation change from a “+” to an “x” symbol, and is applied in combination with newly found art to reject Applicant’s dependent claims.

Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 14-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 6 of prior U.S. Patent No. US11586338B2 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the features recited are included in the corresponding claims of the '872 patent.
It is clear that all the elements of the application claim 1 are to be found in reference patent claim 1 (as the application claim 1 fully encompasses reference patent claim 1). The difference between the application claim 1 and the reference patent claim 1 lies in the fact that the reference application claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claim 1 of the reference patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the reference patent. Please see the correspondence below:

Instant Application ‘592
Reference Patent ‘338
Claim 1: A method, comprising:

detecting, by a computer, that a selectable object on a user interface has been selected via the user interface, the selectable object displaying a first function, the selectable object having a graphical outline defining a size and shape of the selectable object; responsive to the detecting, programmatically transforming, by the computer, the selectable object from the first function to a second function; and

in conjunction with the programmatically transforming, displaying, by the computer via the user interface, an animated transition in which the graphical outline of the selectable object gradually increases in size and changes in shape such that the programmatically transforming of the selectable object from the first function to the second function is visualized via the user interface.

Claim 1: A system, comprising: a device processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium; and stored instructions translatable by the processor to perform:

creating a vector shape having a control point on a plane and a direction of a path per the control point; generating a selectable object using the vector shape, wherein the selectable object has a graphical outline defining a size and shape of the selectable object; creating an event listener for the selectable object; and creating vector transformation instructions on the event listener, wherein the vector transformation instructions, when executed on a user device include:

programmatically transform the selectable object from one function to another function in a user interface, wherein programmatic transformation of the selectable object is triggered by a selection event detected by the event listener on the selectable object displayed on the user device;

displaying on the user device an animated transition which shows that the graphical outline of the selectable object gradually increases in size and changes in shape to form a new dialog menu having dialog menu items representing different functions of the new dialog menu;

during a first stage of the animated transition, displaying on the user device the dialog menu items of the new dialog menu outside of the graphical outline of the selectable object; and
during a second stage of the animated transition, the graphical outline of the selectable object increases in size sufficiently to allow the dialog menu items to be displayed in the new dialog menu within the graphical outline of the selectable object.
Claim 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein the selectable object is generated using a transformable shape having editable properties.

Claim 4: The system of claim 2, wherein the animated transition of the selectable object to the new dialog menu comprises:
rotating the first symbol within the button shape into a second symbol within the new dialog menu; and
changing size and shape of the selectable object to size and shape of the new dialog menu.

Claim 7: The method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying further comprises displaying a dialog menu inside the graphical outline of the selectable object.

Claim 6: The system of claim 2, wherein the animated transition of the selectable object to the new dialog menu comprises:
changing a first function associated with the first symbol to a second function associated with the second symbol; and
displaying the dialog menu items along or within the new dialog menu.

Claim 8
See Claim 1 above
Claim 9
See Claim 4 above

Claim 14
See Claim 6 above
Claim 15
See Claim 1 above
Claim 16
See Claim 4 above

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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HONG (US20170329465A1).

As to independent claim 1, HONG teaches a method, comprising: detecting, by a computer, that a selectable object on a user interface has been selected via the user interface (See figs. 2B-3, e.g. fig. 2B, par. 0043, wherein when the user selects dynamic button 206A, as will be depicted in subsequent figures, first a ripple effect may be depicted around dynamic button 206A to indicate that selection has occurred. This selection may have occurred, for example, by the user depressing a mouse button while the cursor hovered over dynamic button 206A; as taught by HONG),
the selectable object displaying a first function (See fig. 3, par. 0050, wherein the rendering may include rendering the dynamic button in a manner that an application action caused by selection of the dynamic button is conveyed. This may include, for example, placing the title of the application action (e.g., delete, add, etc.) in the rendering of the dynamic button, but could also or alternatively include using symbols to indicate the application action (e.g., an “X” with a circle to denote deletion); as taught by HONG),
the selectable object having a graphical outline defining a size and shape of the selectable object (See fig. 2B, par. 0041, wherein dynamic buttons 206A-206D is provided for each of the four products 204A-204D. Here, the dynamic button 206A-206D is initially depicted as an “X” surrounded by a circle, said circle encompassing an initial size and shape; as taught by HONG);
responsive to the detecting, programmatically transforming, by the computer, the selectable object from the first function to a second function (See figs. 2D-2H, items 206A, 214A-214B, par. 0042, wherein selection of the dynamic button 206A-206D causes a sequence of operations, including operations causing the selected dynamic button 206A-206D to morph into a different shape that provides the opportunity for the user to execute the confirmation action from within the dynamic button 206A-206D itself; as taught by HONG);
and in conjunction with the programmatically transforming, displaying, by the computer via the user interface, an animated transition in which the graphical outline of the selectable object gradually increases in size and changes in shape such that the programmatically transforming of the selectable object from the first function to the second function is visualized via the user interface (See figs. 2D-2K, items 206A, 214A-214B, par. 0042, wherein transition animations may be used to convey to the user that selection of the button has occurred as well as to indicate that the button is not being removed, and the graphical outline encompassing the button actually morphs (animates) into a different size and shape (from a circle to a capsule shape); see also par. 0045, wherein referring now to FIG. 2D, the dynamic button 206A then begins to expand, pushing neighboring button 212 towards the left as the dynamic button 206A enlarges to the left. In FIG. 2E, the dynamic button 206A continues to grow, and the “X” in the dynamic button 206A begins to fade. Also fading is the neighboring button 212; see also par. 0046, wherein referring to FIG. 2F, two sub-buttons 214A, 214B containing text have started to fade-in inside the dynamic button 206A. In FIG. 2G, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B have completely faded in, revealing the text “Delete” and “Cancel”, respectively, indicating the functions of the sub-buttons 214A, 214B. Notably, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B have both formed within the area of the dynamic button 206A; as taught by HONG).

As to claim 2, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1. HONG further teaches wherein the selectable object is generated using a transformable shape having editable properties (See figs. 14A-14E, par. 0111, wherein FIGS. 14A-14E are diagrams illustrating development of an iOS™ application (also known as an “app”) with a dynamic button, in accordance with an example embodiment. The iOS™ app can be developed using Swift in Xcode. The app can be run in either a device simulator or in an actual connected device. In both cases, Xcode automatically configures the app and desired extension bundles and their initial resources; as taught by HONG).

As to claim 7, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1. HONG further teaches wherein the displaying further comprises displaying a dialog menu inside the graphical outline of the selectable object (see fig. 2G, par. 0046, wherein Referring to FIG. 2F, two sub-buttons 214A, 214B containing text have started to fade-in inside the dynamic button 206A. In FIG. 2G, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B have completely faded in, revealing the text “Delete” and “Cancel”, respectively, indicating the functions of the sub-buttons 214A, 214B. Notably, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B have both formed within the area of the dynamic button 206A (inside the graphical outline). In the underlying user interface, the sub-buttons 214A, 214B are both part of the UI element dedicated to the dynamic button 206A, and thus are not independent UI elements from the dynamic button 206A, such as would be the case if sub-buttons 214A, 214B had replaced dynamic button 206A or been overlaid on top of dynamic button 206A; as taught by HONG).

As to independent claim 8, claim 8 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

As to claim 9, claim 9 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

As to claim 14, claim 14 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 7 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

As to independent claim 15, claim 15 amounts to the computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Claim 16 amounts to the computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

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 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG (US20170329465A1) in view of MIERAU et al. (US9448692B1).

As to claim 3, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hong teaches an initial “x” symbol which gradually fades as it is replaced by menu items “DELETE” and “CANCEL”. HONG does not expressly teach wherein the selectable object initially comprises a “+” symbol, and wherein the animated transition shows that the symbol changes from “+” to (a persistent) “x” which corresponds to the selectable object being programmatically transformed from the first function to the second function.
In similar field of endeavor, MIERAU teaches wherein the selectable object comprises a symbol and wherein the animated transition shows that the symbol changes from an initial “+” to an “x” which corresponds to the selectable object being programmatically transformed from the first function to the second function (see Figs. 3A-3B, col. 5, ln. 65 – col. 6, ln. 3, in response to detecting the contact at the predefined location, an animation of the menu icon is displayed on the touch-sensitive screen for a predefined period of time. The animation may show the menu icon rotating for the predefined period of time [i.e. the ‘+’ sign in fig. 3A rotates to become the sign ‘x’ in fig. 3B]; as taught by Mierau). It is noted that Mierau’s resulting “x” persists on the screen (i.e. does not fade from view).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HONG’s invention to include the teachings of MIERAU so that the initial symbol is a “+”, and wherein the animated transition shows that the symbol changes from “+” to a persistent “x”, which corresponds to the selectable object being programmatically transformed from the first function to the second function.
Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it is a significant challenge to design user interfaces for portable computing devices. In particular, due to limited screen sizes, many portable computing devices are restricted in the number of functionalities that they are able to offer their users … so there is a need for more transparent and intuitive user interfaces for portable computing devices that are easy to use, configure, and/or adapt (Mierau, col. 1, ln. 20). Adding Mierau’s teachings would also serve to offer an alternate and more familiar way for users to deal with selectable objects and menu selection.

As to claim 4, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 3. HONG teaches when a user selects “Cancel”, the dynamic button initiates an animation reversal, including shrinking of the button outline accordingly (see HONG Figs. 2K, 2L, 2J, par. 0049). HONG does not specifically teach reversal based upon initial selection of “x”.
MIERAU further teaches detecting that the symbol “x” has been selected, programmatically transforming the selectable object from the second function to the first function and programmatically transforming of the selectable object from the second function to first second function is visualized via the user interface on the user device (see Figs. 3F-3G, col. 6, ll. 47-55, If the viewing user decides not to use any of the sub-menu icons, the viewing user may collapse the sub-menu icons into the menu icon by making a subsequent contact with the menu icon. If the viewing user makes contact with the menu icon while the sub-menu icons are displayed on the user interface, the sub-menu icons travel back (or return) along the predefined paths toward the menu icon so that once the sub-menu icons return back to the menu icon each sub-menu icon ceases to display on the user interface; as taught by Mierau).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to apply MIERAU to Hong, providing Hong an alternate and more familiar way for users to deal with selectable objects and menu selection.

As to claim 5, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 3. MIERAU further teaches wherein the animated transition comprises a first stage and a second stage, wherein the symbol “+” is displayed during the first stage of the animated transition, and wherein the symbol “x” is displayed during the second stage of the animated transition (see Figs. 3A-3C, col. 5, ll. 50-54, as shown in FIG. 3A, the menu icon 302 may be graphically overlaid over a feed 304 received from a social networking system and displayed on a touch-sensitive screen; see also col. 6, ll. 1-3, The animation may show the menu icon rotating for the predefined period of time. An example of a rotated menu icon 302 is shown in FIG. 3B; see also col. 6, ll. 19-23, The menu icon 302 does not change position relative to its location on the user interface of the screen, but may rotate clockwise or counter clockwise while the sub-menu icons emanate outward from the menu icon; see also col. 6, ll. 24-34, FIGS. 3C, 3D, and 3E. In other words, the “+” symbol is initially displayed (i.e. a first stage), and the resulting “x” symbol is displayed subsequent to a rotation animation (i.e. a second stage). This sequence is applied to Hong’s graphical button outline expansion as previously described.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to apply MIERAU to Hong, providing Hong an alternate and more familiar way for users to deal with selectable objects and menu selection.

As to claim 6, HONG and MIERAU teach the limitations of claim 3. MIERAU further teach wherein the symbol “+” is displayed at a position during the first stage of the animated transition and wherein the symbol “x” is displayed in place at the position during the second stage of the animated transition, while the graphical outline of the selectable object gradually increases in size and changes in shape (see Figs. 3A-3F, col. 6, ll. 19-23, The menu icon 302 does not change position relative to its location on the user interface of the screen, but may rotate clockwise or counter clockwise while the sub-menu icons emanate outward from the menu icon; as taught by Mierau). In other words, the “+” symbol is initially displayed (i.e. a first stage), and the resulting “x” symbol is displayed subsequent to a rotation animation (i.e. a second stage). This sequence is applied to Hong’s graphical button outline expansion as previously described.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to apply MIERAU to Hong, providing Hong an alternate and more familiar way for users to deal with selectable objects and menu selection.

Claim 10 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 3 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Claim 11 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 4 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Claim 12 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 5 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Claim 13 amounts to the system for performing the method of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 6 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Claim 17 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 3 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Claim 18 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 4 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Claim 19 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 5 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Claim 20 amounts to the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 6 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Publication Number
Filing Date
Title
US20170123636A1
2015-11-03
Method and apparatus for morphing and positioning objects on a touch-screen device to aide in one-handed use of the device

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOOROSH NEHCHIRI whose telephone number is (408)918-7643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-7 PST.
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 L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.

/KOOROSH NEHCHIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2174

/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174