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 .
This action is in response to communications filed on 07/30/2025.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/776321, filed on 05/12/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “striking” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “striking” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is considered “striking” varies depending on person, context, etc. As such, the claim is indefinite. Corresponding independent claims 6 and 7 are indefinite for the same reasons. Dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 incorporate features of respective independent claims and thus also are indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that Karunamuni allegedly does not teach a swiping operation and that the “previous display style” of Karunamuni is allegedly the same as the “second preset style” of Karunamuni. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to swiping, Karunamuni teaches “a portion of a gesture is identified for purposes of determining a characteristic intensity. For example, a touch-sensitive surface may receive a continuous swipe contact transitioning from a start location and reaching an end location (e.g., a drag gesture), at which point the intensity of the contact increase… media playback slider” (e.g. in paragraph 171). With respect to the different styles, Karunamuni is interpreted to teach a previous style before detecting “a touch operation” (e.g. figure 5D item 534 including item 502-2 showing “previous style”; note that in this interpretation, “a touch operation” would refer to a contact that has two sequential increases in intensity as described in paragraph 191; therefore, item 534 is before “a touch operation”), a first preset style in response to “the touch operation” (e.g. figure 5D item 536 including item 502-3 showing “first preset style”), and a second preset style different from the previous style and the first preset style in response to “end of the touch operation” (e.g. figure 5D item 538a showing “second preset style” different from the “previous style” 502-2). As such, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. See rejections below for details with respect to newly amended features related to “striking”. Moreover, Jobs also teaches three styles based on a touch operation as noted below.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni et al. (US 20170046058 A1) in view of Homma et al. (US 20120044170 A1), and Woo et al. (US 20130147928 A1) [or alternatively and Jobs et al. (US 20080122796 A1)].
As per independent claim 1, Karunamuni teaches a target object display method, comprising:
displaying a page in which a touch area is comprised, wherein the touch area is used for displaying a target object, wherein the target object is a progress bar (e.g. in paragraphs 183 and 192, and figure 5D item 538a, “a touch-sensitive display… media playback slider 502”, i.e. progress bar);
displaying the target object in the touch area in a previous display style, before detecting a touch operation in the touch area (e.g. in paragraphs 171, 183, and 190-191, “the display of the expanded portion of media playback slider 502-2 is maintained” and figure 5D item 534 including item 502-2 showing “previous style”, note that “a touch operation” is interpreted as “contact at the location indicated by focus selector 518-3 has again increased to above IT.sub.H, as indicated by intensity meter 522-3 shown adjacent to user interface” and item 534 is before this touch operation), wherein the touch operation is a swiping operation on the progress bar (e.g. in paragraph 171, “a portion of a gesture is identified for purposes of determining a characteristic intensity. For example, a touch-sensitive surface may receive a continuous swipe contact transitioning from a start location and reaching an end location (e.g., a drag gesture), at which point the intensity of the contact increase… media playback slider”);
displaying the target object in the touch area in a first preset style, in response to detecting the touch operation in the touch area, wherein the first preset style is different from the previous display style and the first preset style is a style (e.g. in paragraphs 171 and 191, “continuous swipe contact transitioning from a start location and reaching an end location (e.g., a drag gesture), at which point the intensity of the contact increase… characteristic intensity of the contact at the location indicated by focus selector 518-3 has again increased to above IT.sub.H, as indicated by intensity meter 522-3 shown adjacent to user interface 536. In response to the second increase in the characteristic intensity (from the characteristic intensity indicated by intensity meter 522-2 shown adjacent to user interface 534), a further expanded portion of media playback slider 502-3 is displayed”, i.e. different, and figure 5D item 502-3 showing “first preset style”) with an element for guiding a user to operate on the progress bar (e.g. in paragraphs 184-185, “play head 520 is moved in the direction of the contact's movement… Play head 520...displayed under focus selector”),
displaying the target object in the touch area in a second preset style, in response to detecting an end of the touch operation, wherein the second preset style is different from the previous display style and the first preset style, the second preset style is a style with a thinner line than a line of the first preset style (e.g. in paragraph 192, “the contact has lifted off from touch screen 112. In response to the liftoff, media playback slider 502 is displayed at its initial state”, i.e. no expansion, i.e. thinner, and figure 5D item 538a showing “second preset style” including thinner line, which is different than 502-2 and 502-3), the first preset style is more striking than the previous display style (e.g. in figure 5D item 502-3 more striking than item 502-2) and the second preset style is less striking than the previous display style (e.g. in figure 5D item 538a has a style that is less striking than item 502-2),
but does not specifically teach in which a touch area and at least one non-touch area adjacent to the touch area are comprised, wherein the at least one non-touch area does not respond to a preset touch operation and wherein the second preset style is a style without the element.
However, Homma teaches displaying a page in which a touch area and at least one non-touch area adjacent to the touch area are comprised, wherein the at least one non-touch area does not respond to a preset touch operation (e.g. in paragraphs 94-95, “As shown in the left diagram of FIG. 11, in the case where the finger touches a button in the navigation bar region (S108)… as shown in the right diagram of FIG. 11, even when there is an operation input to the [non-touch] region which is the region other than the navigation bar region, the operation input is disabled, and the processing corresponding thereto is not executed” and figure 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Karunamuni to include the teachings of Homma because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing focused input and/or preventing input error;
but does not specifically teach wherein the second preset style is a style without the element.
However, Woo teaches a second preset style is a style without an element (e.g. in paragraphs 130-131 and figure 8B showing a progress bar without an element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second preset style of the combination to include the teaching of Woo because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of incorporating well-known styles, further amounting to a simple substitution that yields predictable results [e.g. see KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398,82 USPQ2d 1385,1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP 2143(B)].
If, in the alternative, the combination is not interpreted to teach any of “displaying the target object in the touch area in a previous display style, before detecting a touch operation in the touch area… displaying the target object in the touch area in a first preset style, in response to detecting the touch operation in the touch area… displaying a target object in a touch area in a second preset style, in response to detecting an end of a touch operation, wherein the second preset style is different from a previous display style and a first preset style… the first preset style is more striking than the previous display style and the second preset style is less striking than the previous display style” as applied above, then the teachings of Jobs can be relied upon. Jobs teaches displaying a target object in a touch area in a previous display style, before detecting a touch operation in the touch area (e.g. in paragraphs 1192-1195, “finger is in-range [before “a touch operation”]… In some embodiments, an [object] is highlighted by altering its color or altering its shape”, i.e. a previous display style), displaying the target object in the touch area in a first preset style, in response to detecting the touch operation in the touch area (e.g. in paragraphs 1192-1195, “the user's finger is in-contact with the touch screen display [a touch operation]. As a result, the key icon "H" is further highlighted”, i.e. a first preset style), displaying the target object in the touch area in a second preset style in response to detecting an end of the touch operation (e.g. in paragraphs 1192-1195, “the finger is just out of contact with the touch screen”, i.e. end of “the touch operation”, which means “this distance d.sub.1 is beyond the in-range distance threshold. Therefore, no [object] on the touch screen display gets highlighted”, i.e. a second preset style), wherein the second preset style is different from a previous display style and a first preset style (e.g. figure 59D different from 59B and 59C), the first preset style is more striking than the previous display style (e.g. figure 59C more striking than 59B), and the second preset style is less striking than the previous display style (e.g. figure 59D less striking than 59B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Jobs because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of providing relevant feedback to the user with respect to interaction.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches intercepting a touch operation, in response to monitoring the touch operation in the non-touch area (e.g. Homma, in paragraph 94, “even when there is an operation input to the [non-touch] region which is the region other than the navigation bar region, the operation input is disabled”).
Claim 6 is the device claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasons set forth, and the combination further teaches an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors and a storage device having thereon stored one or more programs (e.g. Karunamuni, in paragraph 43).
Claim 7 is the medium claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasons set forth, and the combination further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having thereon stored a computer program (e.g. Karunamuni, in paragraph 43).
Claims 3, 10-11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni et al. (US 20170046058 A1) in view of Homma et al. (US 20120044170 A1), and Woo et al. (US 20130147928 A1) [or alternatively and Jobs et al. (US 20080122796 A1)] and further in view of Wang (US 20150153943 A1).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but the combination does not specifically teach, as a whole, updating a current progress of the progress bar based on position information of a current swiping contact point, in response to detecting a swiping operation in the touch area and a swiping distance being greater than a preset threshold. However, Wang teaches a target object being a progress bar and updating a current progress of the progress bar based on position information of a current swiping contact point, in response to detecting a swiping operation in the touch area and a swiping distance being greater than a preset threshold (e.g. in paragraphs 21-22, 35-36, 61-62, and 65-66, “electronic visual display that the user can control through touching the screen-touch gestures… user interface may also include a progress bar and a progress indicator. In some embodiments, the progress bar illustrates the time frame for the play session; and the progress indicator, with its position on the progress bar, indicates the progress of the play session… detect a drag operation to the progress indictor and a drag position of the progress indicator… computer system may determine whether the distance between the starting position and the drag position is greater than a preset value” and figures 2B-2D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Wang because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing video progress to be directly manipulated and indicated.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and the combination further teaches displaying a target element, in response to detecting an end of the swiping operation (e.g. Wang, in paragraphs 21-22, 35-36 and 61-62, “ending position is the position of the progress indicator when the drag operation is completed… drag position x2' is the ending position of the drag operation… after the drag operation, the display of the progress bar reverts back to the pattern shown by FIG. 2B, which is before the drag operation, wherein the section between the initiating position and the position of the progress indicator displays the progress layer [or] after the drag operation, the progress bar 100 displays the progress layer 190 in section 157 between the initiating position x1 and the position y1 of the status indicator 300; and the progress bar 100 displays an image overlaying the progress layer 190 and the status layer 195 corresponding to the status indicator 300 in the section between position y1 and the drag position x2”, etc. and figures 2B-2D).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein displaying a target element comprises: displaying the target element in the touch area in a second preset style (e.g. Wang, in paragraphs 91, 103 and 106, “pattern… progress layer 190… status layer 195”, i.e. second preset style, and figures 2B-2D items 190 and 195).
Claims 13 and 17 correspond to method claim 3, and are rejected under the same reasons set forth.
Claims 5, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunamuni et al. (US 20170046058 A1) in view of Homma et al. (US 20120044170 A1), Woo et al. (US 20130147928 A1), and Wang (US 20150153943 A1) [or alternatively and Jobs et al. (US 20080122796 A1)] and further in view of Abe et al. (US 6763177 B1) and You et al. (US 20070287494 A1).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein a tab switching control is further comprised in the page, and the progress bar has a higher priority level than the tab switching control.
However, Abe teaches a tab switching control being further comprised in the page (e.g. in column 7 line 65 – column 8 line 4, “view in the time line area is switchable between a time line (time sequential) view and a list view, which can be selected by a tab in the upper left of the time line area”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Abe because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of incorporating relevant functionality.
The combination teaches a first displayed item including the progress bar (e.g. Wang, in paragraph 22) and a second displayed item including the tab switching control (e.g. Abe, in column 7 line 65 – column 8 line 4, “view in the time line area is switchable between a time line (time sequential) view and a list view, which can be selected by a tab in the upper left of the time line area”) and You teaches a first displayed item having a higher priority level than a second displayed item (e.g. in paragraphs 6-8, “determining a pre-assigned priority of each of the two or more touch keys and determining the touch key of the two or more touch keys that has the highest priority as the key input”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of You because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of further enhancing input error prevention.
Claims 15 and 19 correspond to method claim 5, and are rejected under the same reasons set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example,
Tsuei (US 20100207894 A1) teaches “a method for preventing on-screen keys from being accidentally touched, by which a protective mask is covered on the on-screen keys during a phone call, so as to prevent the on-screen keys from being accidentally touched” (e.g. in paragraph 8 and figure 5 showing touch area and non touch areas).
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 WILLIAM WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241. 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.
/W.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2144 10/02/2025
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144