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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims contain new matter.
Regarding claim 4, the original specification does not teach that the menu is simultaneously both displaced from a first location and overlaid at the first location. In claim 4, the first location corresponds to a positional state of the stylus, which could include being the same location.
Regarding claim 5, the language could be interpreted to include that the first object has focus due to the location of a stylus projection. The original specification does not teach the first object has focus due to the location of a stylus projection and that the menu is simultaneously both displaced from a focus location and overlaid at the focus location.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 4, the language of claim 1 and claim 4 appears to indicate that the menu may be simultaneously both displaced from a first location and overlaid at the first location, which is contradictory. In claim 4, the first location corresponds to a positional state of the stylus, which could include being the same location, which appears to contradict claim 1. It is not clear what the intended scope of the limitation is intended to be.
Regarding claim 5, the language could be interpreted to include that the first object has focus due to the location of a stylus projection. This appears to indicate that the menu may be simultaneously both displaced from a first location and overlaid at the first location, which is contradictory.
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.
Note that citations to figures and elements should be understood to also implicitly refer to any pertinent explanatory text in the reference.
If a rationale for combination of references for a dependent claim is not expressly stated, it should be presumed to be the same as that stated earlier for the same combination of references.
Claims 2-7, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0068941 A1 (“Arrasvuori”) in view of US 2013/0227482 A1 (“Thorsander ’482”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 2014/0253521 A1 (“Hicks”).
Regarding claim 2, Arrasvuori teaches a method (Abstract), comprising:
at an electronic device (Fig. 2 at 100) in communication with a display (Fig. 2 at 110) and one or more input devices ([26], [29]) to detect signals from a stylus ([17], [21], [26], [29]: optical and/or acoustic signals are detected from the stylus) associated with the device (Fig. 2 at 100):
displaying a user interface on the display (Figs. 1a, 4a, 4b, 7);
while displaying the user interface on the display, detecting via the one or more input devices, a signal from the stylus indicating that a user has performed a gesture via the stylus without the stylus making contact with the display ([17], [21], [26], [29]; Figs. 4a, 4b);
in response to detecting the signal from the stylus ([17], [21], [26], [29]):
in accordance with a determination that the gesture satisfies one or more criteria, displaying, via the display, a menu overlaid on the user interface, the menu including a plurality of selectable menu options ([22], [33]; Figs. 4a, 4b, 7); and
in accordance with a determination that the gesture does not satisfy the one or more criteria, forgoing displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface ([33]-[34], [40]-[41]: menu is displayed upon triggering by satisfaction of criteria, meaning that menu is not displayed before then);
while displaying, via the display, the menu overlaid on the user interface in accordance with the determination that the gesture satisfies the one or more criteria in response to detecting the signal from the stylus, detecting, via the one or more input devices, selection of a first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]; note that [3] teaches a prior art device, but it would have been obvious to combine this teaching with the other embodiments of the reference as all involve hovering input and menu display, providing suggestion, with the motivation being to offer a user greater input versatility); and,
in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]):
performing an operation that corresponds to the first menu option (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]).
Arrasvuori does not expressly teach wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the projection of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction. Doray teaches wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus and hand have a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus and have a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction ([56]-[57]). Hicks teaches determining a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display ([28], [32]) and being able to determine the orientation of the stylus in order to determine a response to the orientation ([28], [32], [35]). The suggestion to combine the teaching of Doray and Hicks is present as Doray indicates that different methods may be used to determine a direction vector ([56]). The motivation is to not require contact with the display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray teaches stylus input and indicates that different methods may be used to determine a direction vector, while Hicks teaches determining the orientation of a stylus for stylus input. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teachings of Doray and Hicks is present as both Arrasvuori and Doray teach displaying menus in response to stylus input, and Hicks further modifies the teaching of Doray as explained above. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Doray, and Hicks would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the projection of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction.
Arrasvuori does not expressly teach, in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options, ceasing to display the menu. However, Thorsander ’482 teaches ceasing to display the menu in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options ([25]; Numbered clause 127). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by this teaching of Thorsander ’482 is present as both teach user screen input devices with displayed menus. The motivation is to automatically remove a menu instead of requiring a user to manually close a menu. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach user screen input devices with menus. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori and Thorsander ’482 would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options, ceasing to display the menu.
Regarding claim 3, Arrasvuori further teaches wherein the display is a touch-sensitive display ([17], [21], [24], [31]).
Regarding claim 4, Doray further teaches wherein: the detected signal from the stylus includes a positional state of the stylus corresponding to a respective location in the user interface on the display ([56]-[57]; Fig. 7); and displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface includes: in accordance with a determination that the positional state corresponds to a first location in the user interface, displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface at the first location ([56]-[57]; Fig. 7); and in accordance with a determination that the positional state corresponds to a second location in the user interface, different from the first location, displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface at the second location ([56]-[57]; Fig. 7). Note that Arrasvuori and Hicks also teach wherein: the detected signal from the stylus includes a positional state of the stylus corresponding to a respective location in the user interface on the display (Arrasvuori [17]-[18], [28]); Hicks [28], [32]). Arrasvuori, Doray, and Hicks are obvious to combine for the rationale explained regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Arrasvuori further teaches wherein: detecting the signal from the stylus includes detecting the signal while a first object in the user interface has focus ([17]-[18], [28]). The combination of Arrasvuori, Doray, and Hicks renders obvious displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface includes displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface at or adjacent to the first object, for the rationale of combination explained regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Arrasvuori further teaches wherein the one or more criteria are satisfied independent of a tilt of the stylus ([17], [22], [26], [33]).
Regarding claim 7, Arrasvuori further teaches wherein the one or more criteria are satisfied independent of an orientation of the stylus ([17], [22], [26], [33]).
Regarding claim 11, Arrasvuori further teaches wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a characteristic of the gesture is greater than a threshold characteristic, and that is not satisfied when the characteristic of the gesture is less than the threshold characteristic ([33]-[34]).
Regarding claim 13, Arrasvuori teaches an electronic device (Abstract; Fig. 2 at 100) in communication with a display (Fig. 2 at 110) and one or more input devices to detect signals from a stylus associated with the device ([17], [21], [26], [29]: optical and/or acoustic signals are detected from the stylus), comprising:
one or more processors ([5], [60]-[62]);
memory ([5], [60]-[62]); and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions ([5], [60]-[62]) for:
displaying a user interface on the display (Figs. 1a, 4a, 4b, 7);
while displaying the user interface on the display, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a signal from the stylus indicating that a user has performed a gesture via the stylus without the stylus making contact with the display ([17], [21], [26], [29]; Figs. 4a, 4b);
in response to detecting the signal from the stylus ([17], [21], [26], [29]):
in accordance with a determination that the gesture satisfies one or more criteria, displaying, via the display, a menu overlaid on the user interface, the menu including a plurality of selectable menu options ([22], [33]; Figs. 4a, 4b, 7); and
in accordance with a determination that the gesture does not satisfy the one or more criteria, forgoing displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface ([33]-[34], [40]-[41]: menu is displayed upon triggering by satisfaction of criteria, meaning that menu is not displayed before then);
while displaying, via the display, the menu overlaid on the user interface in accordance with the determination that the gesture satisfies the one or more criteria in response to detecting the signal from the stylus, detecting, via the one or more input devices, selection of a first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]; note that [3] teaches a prior art device, but it would have been obvious to combine this teaching with the other embodiments of the reference as all involve hovering input and menu display, providing suggestion, with the motivation being to offer a user greater input versatility); and,
in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]):
performing an operation that corresponds to the first menu option (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]).
Arrasvuori does not expressly teach wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the projection of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction. Doray teaches wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus and hand have a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus and have a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction ([56]-[57]). Hicks teaches determining a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display ([28], [32]) and being able to determine the orientation of the stylus in order to determine a response to the orientation ([28], [32], [35]). The suggestion to combine the teaching of Doray and Hicks is present as Doray indicates that different methods may be used to determine a direction vector ([56]). The motivation is to not require contact with the display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray teaches stylus input and indicates that different methods may be used to determine a direction vector, while Hicks teaches determining the orientation of a stylus for stylus input. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teachings of Doray and Hicks is present as both Arrasvuori and Doray teach displaying menus in response to stylus input, and Hicks further modifies the teaching of Doray as explained above. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Doray, and Hicks would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the projection of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction.
Arrasvuori does not expressly teach, in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options, ceasing to display the menu. However, Thorsander ’482 teaches ceasing to display the menu in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options ([25]; Numbered clause 127). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by this teaching of Thorsander ’482 is present as both teach user screen input devices with displayed menus. The motivation is to automatically remove a menu instead of requiring a user to manually close a menu. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach user screen input devices with menus. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori and Thorsander ’482 would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options, ceasing to display the menu.
Regarding claim 14, Arrasvuori teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions ([5], [60]-[62]), which when executed by an electronic device (Figs. 2 at 100, 8 at 800) in communication with a display (Figs. 2 at 110, 8 at 812) and one or more input devices to detect signals from a stylus associated with the device ([17], [21], [26], [29]: optical and/or acoustic signals are detected from the stylus), cause the device to:
display a user interface on the display (Figs. 1a, 4a, 4b, 7);
while displaying the user interface on the display, detect, via the one or more input devices, a signal from the stylus indicating that a user has performed a gesture via the stylus without the stylus making contact with the display ([17], [21], [26], [29]; Figs. 4a, 4b);
in response to detecting the signal from the stylus ([17], [21], [26], [29]):
in accordance with a determination that the gesture satisfies one or more criteria, display, via the display, a menu overlaid on the user interface, the menu including a plurality of selectable menu options ([22], [33]; Figs. 4a, 4b, 7); and
in accordance with a determination that the gesture does not satisfy the one or more criteria, forgo displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface ([33]-[34], [40]-[41]: menu is displayed upon triggering by satisfaction of criteria, meaning that menu is not displayed before then);
while displaying, via the display, the menu overlaid on the user interface in accordance with the determination that the gesture satisfies the one or more criteria in response to detecting the signal from the stylus, detect, via the one or more input devices, selection of a first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]; note that [3] teaches a prior art device, but it would have been obvious to combine this teaching with the other embodiments of the reference as all involve hovering input and menu display, providing suggestion, with the motivation being to offer a user greater input versatility); and,
in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]):
perform an operation that corresponds to the first menu option (Abstract, [3], [5]-[6], [41], [56]).
Arrasvuori does not expressly teach wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the projection of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction. Doray teaches wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus and hand have a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus and have a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction ([56]-[57]). Hicks teaches determining a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display ([28], [32]) and being able to determine the orientation of the stylus in order to determine a response to the orientation ([28], [32], [35]). The suggestion to combine the teaching of Doray and Hicks is present as Doray indicates that different methods may be used to determine a direction vector ([56]). The motivation is to not require contact with the display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray teaches stylus input and indicates that different methods may be used to determine a direction vector, while Hicks teaches determining the orientation of a stylus for stylus input. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teachings of Doray and Hicks is present as both Arrasvuori and Doray teach displaying menus in response to stylus input, and Hicks further modifies the teaching of Doray as explained above. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Doray, and Hicks would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein displaying the menu includes: in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a first orientation relative to the display, displaying the menu at a first location in the user interface that is displaced relative to a position of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display in a first direction; and in accordance with a determination that the stylus has a second orientation, different from the first orientation, relative to the display, displaying the menu at a second location in the user interface that is displaced relative to the position of the projection of the tip of the stylus on the display in a second direction, different from the first direction.
Arrasvuori does not expressly teach to, in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options, cease to display the menu. However, Thorsander ’482 teaches to cease to display the menu in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options ([25]; Numbered clause 127). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by this teaching of Thorsander ’482 is present as both teach user screen input devices with displayed menus. The motivation is to automatically remove a menu instead of requiring a user to manually close a menu. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach user screen input devices with menus. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori and Thorsander ’482 would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to, in response to detecting selection of the first menu option in the plurality of selectable menu options, cease to display the menu.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0068941 A1 (“Arrasvuori”) in view of US 2013/0227482 A1 (“Thorsander ’482”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 2014/0253521 A1 (“Hicks”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of obviousness to try.
Regarding claim 8, Arrasvuori does not expressly teach wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the stylus is perpendicular to the display. Note that “when” may be interpreted as being coinciding without requiring causality. Arrasvuori leaves the angle of the stylus unspecified. As there are a finite range of angles (between zero and 90 degrees), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try a perpendicular angle for the stylus. Furthermore, suggestion to employ a perpendicular angle can be found in Fig. 2 of Arrasvuori, which shows a perpendicular angle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the stylus is perpendicular to the display.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0068941 A1 (“Arrasvuori”) in view of US 2013/0227482 A1 (“Thorsander ’482”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 2014/0253521 A1 (“Hicks”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2014/0210797 A1 (“Kreek”).
Regarding claim 9, Arrasvuori does not expressly teach wherein the menu is a color palette and the plurality of selectable menu options correspond to colors in the color palette. However, Kreek teaches wherein the menu is a color palette and the plurality of selectable menu options correspond to colors in the color palette (Abstract, [25], [27]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by this teaching of Kreek is present as both teach hover input. Furthermore the color palette is essentially a menu analogous to the menu taught by Arrasvuori. The motivation is to add a drawing feature to the device of Arrasvuori, while maintaining a consistent icon dependent input methodology. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach hover input and the color palette is essentially a type of menu. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Thorsander ’482, Doray, Hicks, and Kreek would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the menu is a color palette and the plurality of selectable menu options correspond to colors in the color palette.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0068941 A1 (“Arrasvuori”) in view of US 2013/0227482 A1 (“Thorsander ’482”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 2014/0253521 A1 (“Hicks”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2013/0227483 A1 (“Thorsander ’483”) and design choice.
Regarding claim 10, Arrasvuori does not expressly teach wherein ceasing to display the menu includes displaying an animation of the first menu option appearing to be absorbed by the stylus. Thorsander ’482 does teach animating dismissal of a sidebar ([97]), where the sidebar can be a menu ([33]), but with few details. Meanwhile, Thorsander ’483 teaches displaying an animation of text appearing to be absorbed by a centered object to which the text is attached ([25]). The suggestion to combine these teachings of Thorsander ’482 and Thorsander ’483 with the teaching of Arrasvuori is present as Arrasvuori teaches ceasing to display a menu, while Thorsander ’482 teaches animating ceasing to display a menu, while Thorsander ’483 teaches displaying an animation of text appearing to be absorbed by a centered object to which the text is attached. The motivation is to enhance the user experience. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Arrasvuori teaches ceasing to display a menu, while Thorsander ’482 teaches animating ceasing to display a menu, while Thorsander ’483 teaches displaying an animation of text appearing to be absorbed by a centered object to which the text is attached. The combination renders obvious wherein ceasing to display the menu includes displaying an animation of the first menu option appearing to be absorbed by the icon. None of the references expressly teaches displaying an animation of the first menu option appearing to be absorbed by the stylus. However, because the stylus is located above the icon, displaying an animation of the first menu option appearing to be absorbed by the icon is arguably equivalent to displaying an animation of the first menu option appearing to be absorbed by the stylus. Regardless, as the two are so similar, it would have been obvious as a matter of aesthetic design choice to display an animation of the first menu option appearing to be absorbed by the stylus (the position of the stylus). Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Thorsander ’482, Doray, Hicks, Thorsander ’483, and design choice would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein ceasing to display the menu includes displaying an animation of the first menu option appearing to be absorbed by the stylus.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0068941 A1 (“Arrasvuori”) in view of US 2013/0227482 A1 (“Thorsander ’482”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 2014/0253521 A1 (“Hicks”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of a separate teaching of US 2012/0068941 A1 (“Arrasvuori”) and official notice.
Regarding claim 12, Arrasvuori teaches wherein detecting the selection of the first menu option includes detecting the stylus making contact with the display within the user interface ([3]). Arrasvuori does not expressly teach that the contact is located at a location of the first menu option. Official notice is taken that it was well-known for touch input to be located at the location of an item on a screen. The suggestion to apply this teaching to this teaching of Arrasvuori is present as Arrasvuori teaches touch input. The motivation is to implement touch input. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Arrasvuori teaches touch input and touch input being located at a location of an item was well-known. This teaching of Arrasvuori is denoted as prior art, but the suggestion to modify the device taught by Arrasvuori by the teaching of prior art is present as both involve hovering input with a menu. The motivation is to increase user input options. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Thorsander ’482, Doray, Hicks, and official notice would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein detecting the selection of the first menu option includes detecting the stylus making contact with the display at a location of the first menu option within the user interface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. In particular, the newly amended limitations are rendered obvious by the secondary references Doray and Hicks, as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights