DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 (hereinafter "Remarks”) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warner (USPN 2009/0207175) in view of Yeh et al. (USPN 2012/0013571).
With respect to claim 3, Warner teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-13), comprising:
at least one non-transitory memory (Figs. 1-13. At least Fig. 13, item 1320 and paragraphs [0069]-[0073]);
a touch screen (Figs. 1-13. At least Fig. 10 and paragraph [0058] teach a touch screen); and
one or more processors in communication with the at least one non-transitory memory, and the touch screen (Figs. 1-13. At least Fig. 13, item 1310 and paragraphs [0069]-[0074]), wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the at least one non-transitory memory, to cause the apparatus to:
display an object and at least one other object (Figs. 1-13. At least Figs. 7A-7C and paragraphs [0038], [0039] and [0052]-[0054] teach display and manipulation of GUI objects. At least Figs. 7A-7C, items 204 and 206 read on an object/user interface element and at least one other object/image element);
detect at least part of a gesture on the touch screen (Figs. 1-13. At least Fig. 10 and paragraph [0058] teach detecting input on a touch screen. Examiner notes the term “gesture” is subject to a reasonably broad interpretation and includes the touch inputs of Warner); and
during detection of at least a portion of the gesture, blur, based on a change in a magnitude of the gesture being detected on the touch screen, at least a portion of the at least one other object (Figs. 1-13. At least Figs. 7A-7C, item 206 and paragraphs [0052]-[0054] teach blur of the other object/image element based on a change in the distance magnitude. Fig. 10 and paragraph [0058] teach input can be performed via touch gestures on a touch screen) while maintaining display of the object without applying the blur to the object (Figs. 1-13F. At least Figs. 7A-7C, items 204 and 704a-704c and paragraphs [0052]-[0054] teach blur of the image element does not change the object/user interface element); and
detect a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact to trigger interaction with the touch screen (Figs. 1-13. At least Claim 4, Fig. 10 and paragraph [0058] teach touch screen input. Although not expressly disclosed, Examiner notes the most basic touch input inherently requires an arbitrary increase/decrease threshold to determine a transition between a touch and non-touch state).
However, Warner fails to expressly teach “detect a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen” (emphasis added).
Yeh teaches a known technique detecting contact pressure in a touch system (Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0003], [0011] and [0022]-[0024]).
Warner teaches a base process/product of touch screen detection including a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that a touch screen detection includes a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen. Yeh teaches a known technique of detecting contact pressure in a touch system that is comparable to the base process/product.
Yeh’s known technique of detecting contact pressure in a touch system would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of Warner and the results would have been predictable and resulted in touch screen detection including a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16, 28 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,365,758.
U.S. Patent No. 10,365,758 teaches all of the claim elements (i.e., display of an object and one other object, blurring the one other object based on a change and maintaining the object without applying blur and usage of contact pressure of a touch).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations fall under the broad scope of the instant application.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, 27, 29, 31 and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 10,275,087 in view of Yeh et al. (USPN 2012/0013571).
U.S. Patent No. 10,275,087 teaches most of the claim (i.e., display of an object and one other object, blurring the one other object based on a change and maintaining the object without applying blur). However, U.S. Patent No. 10,275,087 fails to teach “detect a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen” (emphasis added).
Yeh teaches a known technique detecting contact pressure in a touch system (Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0011] and [0022]-[0024]).
U.S. Patent No. 10,275,087 teaches a base process/product of touch screen detection including gesture detection which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that gesture detection includes a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen. Yeh teaches a known technique of detecting contact pressure in a touch system that is comparable to the base process/product.
Yeh’s known technique of detecting contact pressure in a touch system would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 10,275,087 and the results would have been predictable and resulted in touch screen detection including a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 40 and 78 of U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 in view of Warner (USPN 2009/0207175) and further in view of Yeh et al. (USPN 2012/0013571).
U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 teaches most of the claim. However, U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 fails to teach “display an object and at least one other object” and “blur the at least one other object while maintaining display of the object without applying the blur to the object.”
Warner teaches a known technique displaying multiple objects and blurring at least one other object based on distance magnitude of a gesture while maintaining display of the object without applying the blur to the object (Figs. 1-13. At least Figs. 7A-7C and paragraphs [0052-[0054]).
U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 teaches a base process/product of displaying an interface and blurring a portion of the interface based on magnitude which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that an object and at least one other object are displayed and blur the at least one other object while maintaining display of the object without applying the blur to the object. Warner teaches a known technique of displaying multiple objects and blurring at least one other object based on distance magnitude of a gesture that is comparable to the base process/product.
Warner’s known technique of displaying multiple objects and blurring at least one other objects based on distance magnitude of a gesture would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 and the results would have been predictable and resulted in displaying multiple objects and blurring at least one other objects based on distance magnitude of a gesture while maintaining display of the object without applying the blur to the object which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 in view of Warner teach touch screen detection including gestures. However, U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 in view of Warner fails to teach “detect a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen” (emphasis added).
Yeh teaches a known technique detecting contact pressure in a touch system (Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs [0011] and [0022]-[0024]).
U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 in view of Warner teaches a base process/product of touch screen detection including gesture detection which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that gesture detection includes a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen. Yeh teaches a known technique of detecting contact pressure in a touch system that is comparable to the base process/product.
Yeh’s known technique of detecting contact pressure in a touch system would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base process/product of U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757 in view of Warner and the results would have been predictable and resulted in touch screen detection including a predefined pattern of increases and decreases of contact pressure to trigger interaction with the touch screen which results in an improved process/product.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,727 in view of Warner (USPN 2009/0207175) and further in view of Yeh et al. (USPN 2012/0013571).
U.S. Patent No. 11,740,727 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757, discussed above.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 in view of Yeh et al. (USPN 2012/0013571).
U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as U.S. Patent No. 10,656,757, discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830am-5pm 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, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Antonio Xavier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights