DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s submission, filed on May 27, 2025, amending claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16. 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 § 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 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,395,905 to Wherry (“Wherry”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0004405 to Campbell et al. (“Campbell”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0192567 to Banno et al. (“Banno”), and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0378549 to Layne, Jr. et al. (“Layne”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Wherry describes a touch screen interface and method that enable a user to easily cause scrolling on a display screen using a touch sensor device (see e.g. column 2, lines 47-51). Like claimed, Wherry particularly teaches:
rendering a list selection window comprising an element list and a scrollbar (see e.g. column 16, line 48-59; and FIG. 4A: Wherry describes a touch screen interface integrated with an electronic system, wherein the touch screen interface displays a set of scrollable items such as a list of titles of music pieces. The displayed set of scrollable items is considered a “list selection window” like claimed, and comprises an element list, e.g. a list of titles of music pieces. Wherry further discloses that, in addition to the list of titles of music pieces, the displayed touch screen interface also displays a scrollbar that provides an indication of a current scroll position therein – see e.g. column 17, lines 2-16; and FIG. 4A).
defining a slidable input region corresponding to the scrollbar (see e.g. column 17, lines 11-16: Wherry discloses that object motion near the displayed scrollbar can cause scrolling or jumping through the displayed set of scrollable items. The region of the display over which the scrollbar is presented can be considered a slidable input region like claimed, as it is apparent that a sliding input motion over this region, i.e. near the scrollbar, would causing scrolling through the set of items.);
receiving a press-and-hold input from a touch sensitive display (see e.g. column 11, lines 40-59: Wherry describes a process that includes determining if a sensed object motion, received via a touch screen interface, corresponds to scrolling initiation gesture. Wherry particularly discloses that the scrolling initiation gesture can include placing an input object, e.g. a finger, down on the touch screen interface and holding the input object relatively still for at least a designated amount of time – see e.g. column 17, lines 17-32; and column 20, lines 21-42. Such a type of scrolling initiation gesture can be considered a “press-and-hold” input like claimed.); and
in response to the press-and-hold input, entering a persistent state comprising:
rendering a directional input (see e.g. column 12, lines 16-29; column 17, lines 17-47; and FIG. 4B: Wherry discloses that a graphical scroll wheel is displayed if the sensed object motion corresponds to the scrolling initiation gesture. Wherry further discloses that the user can use the graphical scroll wheel, e.g. by moving his or her finger clockwise or counter-clockwise around the scroll wheel, to scroll up or down the set of scrollable items – see e.g. column 21, line 34 – column 22, line 24; and FIGS. 8A-B. The graphical scroll wheel can be considered a “directional input” like claimed, and the interface while the graphical scroll wheel is displayed is considered to be in a “persistent state” like claimed.); and
defining a touch input region corresponding to the directional input (see e.g. column 21, line 34 – column 22, line 24; and FIGS. 8A-B: As noted above, Wherry discloses that the user can use the graphical scroll wheel, e.g. by moving his or her finger clockwise or counter-clockwise around the scroll wheel, to scroll up or down the set of scrollable items. The graphical scroll wheel is thus associated with a touch input region around which the user moves his or her finger to scroll up or down the set of scrollable items.),
wherein inputs to the touch input region supersede inputs to the slidable input region (see e.g. FIG. 4B: Wherry demonstrates that the graphical scroll wheel is displayed over the scroll bar. It is therefore apparent that inputs to the touch input region associated with the graphical scroll wheel would supersede touch inputs to the slidable input region, which is associated with the scroll bar.).
Wherry thus teaches a method similar to that of claim 8, which is for controlling scrolling in a touch sensitive display. Wherry discloses that such teachings can be implemented via computer executable instructions stored within the memory of a device that further comprises a touch sensitive display (i.e. a touchscreen) and a processor for executing the instructions (see e.g. column 5, lines 13-64; and column 8, lines 9-36). Such a device for implementing the above-described teachings of Wherry is considered a “computer apparatus” similar to that of claim 1 and an “avionics input system” similar to that of claim 15. Wherry, however, does not explicitly teach rendering a plurality of directional inputs in response to the press-and-hold input, wherein the plurality of directional inputs comprise a first directional input rendered along a top edge of the touch sensitive display and a second directional input rendered along a bottom edge of the touch sensitive display, as is required by claims 1, 8 and 15. Moreover, Wherry does not explicitly teach defining a touch input region corresponding to each of the directional inputs, wherein each touch input region extends a predefined distance beyond a boundary defined by the corresponding directional input, and wherein each touch input region extends at least partially beyond a boundary defined by the list selection window, as is further required by claims 1, 8 and 15. Wherry also does not explicitly teach deactivating all inputs except for the directional inputs in the persistent state, as is further required by claims 1, 8 and 15.
Similar to Wherry, Campbell generally teaches receiving a touch input from a touch sensitive display and, in response to the touch input, rendering a navigation control UI element that is used to scroll content on the touch sensitive display (see e.g. paragraphs 0028-0035). Regarding the claimed invention, Campbell particularly teaches that rendering the navigation control UI element can comprise rendering a plurality of directional inputs, including a first directional input rendered along a top edge of the touch sensitive display and a second directional input rendered along a bottom edge of the touch sensitive display, and wherein a touch input region is defined for each directional input (see e.g. paragraphs 0045-0046, and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wherry and Campbell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computer apparatus, method and avionics input system taught by Wherry so that, instead of or in addition to the graphical scroll wheel, a navigation control UI element like taught by Campbell is displayed in response to the touch input (i.e. the press-and-hold input) entering the persistent state, wherein the navigation control element comprises a plurality of directional inputs, including a first directional input rendered along a top edge of the touch sensitive display and a second directional input rendered along a bottom edge of the touch sensitive display, and wherein a touch input region is defined for each directional input. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a navigation control UI element because it would enable the user to efficiently scroll the displayed content a predefined amount, as is suggested by Campbell (see e.g. paragraph 0045).
Similar to Wherry and Campbell, Banno teaches rendering a plurality of directional inputs (i.e. “advance keys”) on a touch sensitive display, including a first directional input along a top edge of the touch sensitive display and a second directional input along a bottom edge of the touch sensitive display (see e.g. paragraphs 0029-0030 and FIG. 3). Like claimed, Banno further teaches defining touch input regions (i.e. “touch detection areas”), each corresponding to one of the directional inputs, each extending a predefined distance beyond a boundary defined by the corresponding directional input, and each extending at least partially beyond a boundary defined by a display screen (see e.g. paragraphs 0030-0031 and FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wherry, Campbell and Banno before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computer apparatus, method and avionics input system taught by Wherry and Campbell so as to define touch input regions like taught by Banno, each of which corresponds to one of the directional inputs, each extending a predefined distance beyond a boundary defined by the corresponding directional input, and each extending at least partially beyond a boundary defined by a display screen (i.e. the list selection window). It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it would improve the ease and assuredness of touching the directional inputs, as is taught by Banno (see e.g. paragraph 0031).
Layne generally describes “light dismiss” functionality for a pop-up user interface, wherein a tap anywhere outside of the pop-up user interface dismisses the pop-up user interface, and wherein all other inputs except for those in the pop-up user interface are deactivated (i.e. by a “blocking panel”) (see e.g. paragraphs 0002, 0025-0026, 0036, 0042, and 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computer apparatus, method and avionics input system taught by Wherry, Campbell and Banno such that the plurality of directional inputs in the persistent state are implemented via light dismiss functionality like taught by Layne, wherein a tap anywhere outside of the pop-up user interface (i.e. the plurality of directional inputs) dismisses the pop-up user interface, and wherein all other inputs except for those in the pop-up user interface (i.e. except for the directional inputs) are deactivated. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it can provide users with a higher sense of comfort, as is taught by Layne (see e.g. paragraph 0002). Accordingly, Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a computer apparatus like that of claim 1, a method like that of claim 8, and an avionics input system like that of claim 15.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the computer apparatus, method and avionics input system taught by Wherry, Campbell and Banno such that the plurality of directional inputs in the persistent state are implemented via light dismiss functionality like taught by Layne, wherein a tap anywhere outside of the plurality of directional inputs dismisses the directional inputs. Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne are thus considered to teach: receiving a touch input outside the plurality of directional inputs (i.e. outside their corresponding touch input regions); de-rendering the directional inputs; deactivating the touch input regions; and exiting the persistent state (i.e. dismissing the plurality of directional inputs is considered exiting the persistent state), as is required by claims 2, 9 and 16.
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Wherry further teaches accepting a currently selected item in the list selection window when the touch input regions are deactivated (see e.g. column 28, lines 27-65; and FIGS. 16A-B: Wherry demonstrates that the user can select an item in the list selection window when the graphical scroll wheel is not displayed. In other words, a currently selected item is accepted when the graphical scroll wheel is not displayed, i.e. when the touch input regions of the graphical scroll wheel are deactivated.). Accordingly, Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne further teach a computer apparatus like that of claim 3, a method like that of claim 10, and an avionics input system like that of claim 17.
As per claims 6 and 13, Wherry further teaches defining a press-and-hold input region, wherein the press-and-hold input is received from the press-and-hold input region (see e.g. column 17, lines 17-32; and column 20, lines 21-42: as noted above, Wherry describes a scrolling initiation gesture that includes placing an input object, e.g. a finger, down on a touch screen interface and holding the input object relatively still for at least a designated amount of time; such a gesture can be considered a “press-and-hold input” like claimed. The area on the touch screen interface over which such gesture can be applied is considered a “press-and-hold input region” like claimed.). Accordingly, Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne further teach a computer apparatus like that of claim 6 and a method like that of claim 13.
As per claims 7 and 14, Wherry teaches that the press-and-hold input region is larger than the slidable input region (see e.g. column 17, lines 11-16: like noted above, Wherry discloses that object motion near a displayed scrollbar, i.e. over a “slidable input region,” can cause scrolling or jumping through a displayed set of scrollable items. As further noted above, Wherry describes a scrolling initiation gesture that includes a “press-and-hold input” like claimed; the area on the touch screen interface over which such gesture can be applied is considered a “press-and-hold input region”– see e.g. column 17, lines 17-32; and column 20, lines 21-42. It is apparent that the area on the touchscreen over which the press-and-hold input can be applied, i.e. the press-and-hold input region, is larger than the area of the touchscreen allotted to the scrollbar, i.e. the slidable input region – see e.g. FIGS. 4A and 4B.). Accordingly, Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne further teach a computer apparatus like that of claim 7 and a method like that of claim 14.
As per claim 20, Wherry further teaches defining a press-and-hold input region, larger than the slidable input region, wherein the press-and-hold input is received from the press-and-hold input region (see e.g. column 17, lines 11-16: like noted above, Wherry discloses that object motion near a displayed scrollbar, i.e. over a “slidable input region,” can cause scrolling or jumping through a displayed set of scrollable items. As further noted above, Wherry describes a scrolling initiation gesture that includes placing an input object, e.g. a finger, down on a touch screen interface and holding the input object relatively still for at least a designated amount of time; such a gesture can be considered a “press-and-hold input” like claimed – see e.g. column 17, lines 17-32; and column 20, lines 21-42. The area on the touch screen interface over which such gesture can be applied is considered a “press-and-hold input region” like claimed. It is apparent that the area on the touchscreen over which the press-and-hold input can be applied, i.e. the press-and-hold input region, is larger than the area of the touchscreen allotted to the scrollbar, i.e. the slidable input region – see e.g. FIGS. 4A and 4B.). Accordingly, Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne further teach an avionics input system like that of claim 20.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0220443 to Cranfill et al. (“Cranfill”).
As described above, Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne teach a computer apparatus like that of claim 1, a method like that of claim 8, and an avionics input system like that of claim 15, which entail rendering a list selection window comprising an element list and, in response to receiving a press-and-hold input, defining touch input regions that each correspond to one of a plurality of rendered directional inputs. Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne, however, do not explicitly teach: (i) discretely changing a current selection in the list selection window in response to a single touch input to one of the touch input regions; and (ii) scrolling through the list selection window in response to a press-and-hold input to one of the touch input regions, as is required by claims 4, 11 and 18.
Cranfill nevertheless describes a navigation and control user interface for navigation of displayed images, menus and lists, wherein the navigation and control user interface comprises a plurality of touch input regions (e.g. a “reverse multi-mode zone” and a “forward multi-mode zone”) corresponding to rendered directional inputs (see e.g. paragraphs 0031-0032 and 0035-0036, and FIG. 2). Like claimed, Cranfill particularly teaches: (i) discretely changing a current selection in a list (e.g. scrolling by a predetermined number of lines in a menu) in response to a single touch input (i.e. a tap) to one of the touch input regions (i.e. multi-mode zones); and (ii) scrolling through the list in response to a press-and-hold input to one of the touch input regions (e.g. in response to moving a user’s digit into a multi-mode zone and leaving it there) (see e.g. paragraphs 0036-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wherry, Campbell, Banno, Layne and Cranfill before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch input regions taught by Wherry, Campbell, Banno and Layne such that a current selection in the list (i.e. the list selection window) is discretely changed in response to a single touch input to one of the touch input regions, and the list is scrolled through in response to a press-and-hold input to one of the touch input regions, like taught by Cranfill. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable rapid and intuitive scrolling through large amounts of data, as is suggested by Cranfill (see e.g. paragraph 0051). Accordingly, Wherry, Campbell, Banno, Layne and Cranfill are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a computer apparatus like that of claim 4, a method like that of claim 11, and an avionics input system like that of claim 18.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wherry, Campbell, Banno, Layne and Cranfill, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0227503 to Cheon et al. (“Cheon”).
As described above, Wherry, Campbell, Banno, Layne and Cranfill teach a computer apparatus like that of claim 4, a method like that of claim 11, and an avionics input system like that of claim 18, which entail scrolling through a list selection window in response to a press-and-hold input to a touch sensitive region. Wherry, Campbell, Banno, Layne and Cranfill, however, do not explicitly teach increasing a scroll rate through the list selection window based on a duration of the press-and-hold input, as is required by claims 5, 12 and 19.
Such teachings are nevertheless well-known in the art. Cheon, for example, teaches increasing a scroll rate though content based on a duration of a press-and-hold input to a directional navigation button (see e.g. paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wherry, Campbell, Banno, Layne, Cranfill and Cheon before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computer apparatus, method and avionics input system taught by Wherry, Campbell, Banno, Layne and Cranfill so that the scroll rate through the content (i.e. the list selection window) is increased based on a duration of the press-and-hold input, like taught by Cheon. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the user to easily increase the rate of scrolling, as is evident from Cheon (see e.g. paragraph 0040). Accordingly, Wherry, Campbell, Banno, Layne, Cranfill and Cheon are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a computer apparatus like that of claim 5, a method like that of claim 12, and an avionics input system like that of claim 19.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16. The Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections presented in the previous Office Action have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above, which are required in response to the Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE T BASOM whose telephone number is (571)272-4044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:30 pm, 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571)272-4057. 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.
/BTB/
9/6/2025
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights