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 .
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
These claims depend upon claim 1, which is a computer implemented method. Claims 2-11 recite “The method of claim 1…” These claims should recite “The computer implemented method of claim 1…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
With regard to claims 6, 17, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6, 17 depend upon claims 1, 12 respectively, which do not add further limitations. Steps recited in claims 6,17 are essentially the same, but worded differently. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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-XX are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YEE et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0254865 hereinafter Yee) in view of Sjoberg et al (US Patent 9548012 B1 hereinafter Sjoberg).
With regard to claims 1, 12 and 20, Yee teaches a computer implemented method, a system, a computer program product respectively for dynamically adjusting dimensions of a key of a computer-generated keyboard interface of a computing device, comprising:
capturing, at a computer, biometric data based on use of a computer-generated keyboard interface by a user of the keyboard interface <finger size can be determined and keyboard can be calibrated para 0016>, the keyboard interface being generated by a device having a computer, the biometric data including dimensional data about a digit of the user with respect to a digit impression of the digit on a key of a plurality of keys of the keyboard interface <see fig 2, user pressing the “H” key is determined among a plurality of keys para 0017, 0020, 0025>;
analyzing, using the computer, the biometric data, the analysis including comparing the biometric data of the digit to key dimensions of the key of the plurality of keys of the keyboard interface <user finger size is analyzed and calibration factor can be applied para 0016-0017>;
adjusting, using the computer, the key dimensions of the key
a computer processor (claim 12) <fig 10, item 101 para 0032>,
a computer-readable storage medium (claim 12) <para 0037>;
Yee does not appear to explicitly disclose
generating, using the computer, a computer model being based on the analysis of the biometric data; and adjusting, using the computer, the key dimensions of the key based on the computer model.
In the same field of endeavor, Sjoberg teaches
generating, using the computer, a computer model being based on the analysis of the biometric data <statistical model can be generated based upon finger biometric data - see fig 7 col 14 line 1 – col 15 line 13>; and
adjusting, using the computer, the key dimensions of the key based on the computer model <keyboard can be adjusted based upon model see fig 7 col 14 line 1 – col 15 line 13>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Yee to include the teachings of Sjoberg, in order to obtain using a model to adjust keyboard using the training/calibration (para 0026) taught by Yee. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enhances adjusting keys according to user’s fingers touching the keys.
With regard to claims 2, 13, these claims depend on claims 1, 12 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Yee teaches wherein the digit includes a fingertip of the user <finger tip is used to determine the size, touch area para 0017, 0020, see fig 2>.
With regard to claims 3, 14, these claims depend on claims 1, 12 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Yee teaches wherein the biometric data is captured using the digit impression <user’s finger touch area can be determined para 0020>.
With regard to claims 5, 16, these claims depend on claims 1, 12 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Sjoberg teaches wherein the biometric data includes a pressure reading for the key in response to the digit pressing the key resulting in the digit impression <pressure sensor can be used on a touch pad col 5 lines 15-31>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Yee to include the teachings of Sjoberg. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it helps determining presence of a finger using various sensors and examiner notes that it is well known in the art.
With regard to claims 6, 17, these claims depend on claims 1, 12 respectively, which are rejected above. These claims are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 12.
With regard to claim 9, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Yee teaches wherein the key dimensions include multiple dimensions related to two dimensional space, respectively <key dimensions height, width relate to two dimensions para 0036>.
With regard to claim 11, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. In addition, Yee teaches the method further comprising:
adjusting a space between the key and adjacent keys, based on the computer model. <keys are enlarged based to provide spacing para 0018, using the model as taught by Sjoberg as cited in claim 1 above>.
Claims 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee in view of Sjoberg in view of Maddalozzo et al (US Patent 7768501 B1 hereinafter Maddalozzo).
With regard to claims 4, 15, these claims depend on claims 1, 12 respectively, which are rejected above. Yee, Sjoberg do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Maddalozzo teaches wherein the biometric data includes a heat index based on the digit impression <heat index can be used for customization of keyboard associated with width of the fingers col 9 lines 48-62>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg, Maddalozzo before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg to include the teachings of Maddalozoo. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it helps determining presence of a finger using heat index as another effective way of detecting presence of a finger.
Claims 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee in view of Sjoberg in view of Zhang et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/02668879 A1 hereinafter Zhang).
With regard to claims 7, 18, these claims depend on claims 1, 12 respectively, which are rejected above. Yee, Sjoberg do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches the method further comprising:
sending a notification to the device for display to the user for adjusting the key dimensions of the key <use is provided an option to accepting or rejecting or modifying key layout changes para 0028, 0051>;
receiving a confirmation from the device that adjustment of the dimensions of the key is approved by the user <user can accept the modification of the key layout and customize the keyboard fig 2, para 0028, 0051>; and
initiating the adjustment of the dimensions of the key <see fig 5 para 0062>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg, Zhang before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg to include the teachings of Zhang. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides a user to personalize keys on a keyboard.
With regard to claim 10, this claim depends upon claim 1, which is rejected above. Yee, Sjoberg do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein the key dimensions include multiple dimensions related to three dimensional space, respectively <key can be represented in three dimension fig 5 para 0062>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg, Zhang before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg to include the teachings of Zhang. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides a user to further personalize keys on a keyboard.
Claims 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee in view of Sjoberg in view of Unruh et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0198047 A1 hereinafter Unruh).
With regard to claims 8, 19, these claims depend on claims 1, 12 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Sjoberg teaches the method further comprising:
gathering data of keystrokes from the keyboard interface <key strokes are detected col 14 lines 9-29, fig 7>;
analyzing missed
Yee, Sjoberg do not appear to explicitly disclose remaining limitations of this claim.
Unruh teaches detecting overlapping (double) keys para 0070>;
updating the computer model based on the missed and the double keystrokes <model can be updated para 0031>; and
adjusting the dimensions of the key of the keyboard interface based on the computer model <key size can be updated see fig 6B para 0058-0059>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg, Unruh before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Yee, Sjoberg to include the teachings of Unruh. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to detect multiple keys pressed and to make corrections to the keys accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights