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 § 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.
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 2015/0277760 A1 (“Tagaya”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 8245156 B2 (“Mouilleseaux”).
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 the menu overlaid on the user interface at a location of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display. Doray teaches a menu overlaid on the user interface at a location on the display corresponding to an icon corresponding to a tip of the stylus on the display ([66]: the menu may be centered on the icon). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Doray is present as both teach displaying menus in response to stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. Doray does not expressly teach that the menu overlaps with the tip of the stylus. Mouilleseaux teaches that a menu is centered with respect to a tip of a stylus (Fig. 5 at 505, 510). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Doray by the teaching of Mouilleseaux is present as Doray teaches that the menu may be located at various locations, including centered with respect to the icon ([66]). The motivation to apply the teaching of Mouilleseaux to the teaching of Doray is to provide the user with additional menu location options according to user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray teaches that the menu may be located at various locations, including centered with respect to the icon, and applying the teaching of Mouilleseaux to the teaching of Doray would simply mean centering the menu taught by Doray on the stylus rather than the icon, and the stylus is within the icon, so this location is already within the range of locations suggested by Doray. Tagaya teaches an input location determined by a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display ([48]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Doray by the teaching of Tagaya is present as Doray teaches stylus input and Tagaya teaches stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input versatility to a user. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Mouilleseaux is present as both teach displaying menus in response to stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Tagaya is present as both teach hover input. The motivation is to determine input location. The combination of the above references would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray. Tagaya, and Doray, and Mouilleseaux all teach stylus input. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Tagaya, Doray, and Mouilleseaux would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the menu overlaid on the user interface at a location of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display.
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, Arrasvuori 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 ([17]-[18], [28]); 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 (Figs. 4a, 7; [49]); 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 (Figs. 4a, 7; [49]). The combination of Arrasvuori, Doray, and Mouilleseaux renders obvious displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface at the first location and displaying the menu overlaid on the user interface at the second location, 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 Mouilleseaux 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 explained regarding claim 2. Note that Doray teaches that the stylus activates an icon by touching it, and the combination of Arrasvuori, Doray, and Mouilleseaux renders obvious displaying the menu at the location of the stylus, as 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 the menu overlaid on the user interface at a location of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display. Doray teaches a menu overlaid on the user interface at a location on the display corresponding to an icon corresponding to a tip of the stylus on the display ([66]: the menu may be centered on the icon). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Doray is present as both teach displaying menus in response to stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. Doray does not expressly teach that the menu overlaps with the tip of the stylus. Mouilleseaux teaches that a menu is centered with respect to a tip of a stylus (Fig. 5 at 505, 510). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Doray by the teaching of Mouilleseaux is present as Doray teaches that the menu may be located at various locations, including centered with respect to the icon ([66]). The motivation to apply the teaching of Mouilleseaux to the teaching of Doray is to provide the user with additional menu location options according to user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray teaches that the menu may be located at various locations, including centered with respect to the icon, and applying the teaching of Mouilleseaux to the teaching of Doray would simply mean centering the menu taught by Doray on the stylus rather than the icon, and the stylus is within the icon, so this location is already within the range of locations suggested by Doray. Tagaya teaches an input location determined by a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display ([48]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Doray by the teaching of Tagaya is present as Doray teaches stylus input and Tagaya teaches stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input versatility to a user. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Mouilleseaux is present as both teach displaying menus in response to stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Tagaya is present as both teach hover input. The motivation is to determine input location. The combination of the above references would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray. Tagaya, and Doray, and Mouilleseaux all teach stylus input. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Tagaya, Doray, and Mouilleseaux would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the menu overlaid on the user interface at a location of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display.
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 the menu overlaid on the user interface at a location of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display. Doray teaches a menu overlaid on the user interface at a location on the display corresponding to an icon corresponding to a tip of the stylus on the display ([66]: the menu may be centered on the icon). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Doray is present as both teach displaying menus in response to stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. Doray does not expressly teach that the menu overlaps with the tip of the stylus. Mouilleseaux teaches that a menu is centered with respect to a tip of a stylus (Fig. 5 at 505, 510). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Doray by the teaching of Mouilleseaux is present as Doray teaches that the menu may be located at various locations, including centered with respect to the icon ([66]). The motivation to apply the teaching of Mouilleseaux to the teaching of Doray is to provide the user with additional menu location options according to user preference. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray teaches that the menu may be located at various locations, including centered with respect to the icon, and applying the teaching of Mouilleseaux to the teaching of Doray would simply mean centering the menu taught by Doray on the stylus rather than the icon, and the stylus is within the icon, so this location is already within the range of locations suggested by Doray. Tagaya teaches an input location determined by a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display ([48]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Doray by the teaching of Tagaya is present as Doray teaches stylus input and Tagaya teaches stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input versatility to a user. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Mouilleseaux is present as both teach displaying menus in response to stylus input. The motivation is to provide additional input layout options according to user preference. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Arrasvuori by the teaching of Tagaya is present as both teach hover input. The motivation is to determine input location. The combination of the above references would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Doray. Tagaya, and Doray, and Mouilleseaux all teach stylus input. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Arrasvuori, Tagaya, Doray, and Mouilleseaux would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the menu overlaid on the user interface at a location of a projection of a tip of the stylus on the display.
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 2015/0277760 A1 (“Tagaya”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 8245156 B2 (“Mouilleseaux”) 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 2015/0277760 A1 (“Tagaya”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 8245156 B2 (“Mouilleseaux”) 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, Tagaya, Doray, and Mouilleseaux, 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 2015/0277760 A1 (“Tagaya”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 8245156 B2 (“Mouilleseaux”) 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, Tagaya, Doray, and Mouilleseaux, 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 2015/0277760 A1 (“Tagaya”), US 2013/0227433 A1 (“Doray”), and US 8245156 B2 (“Mouilleseaux”) 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, Tagaya, Doray, Mouilleseaux, 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, Applicant’s arguments do not apply in view of the newly cited secondary reference, Mouilleseaux.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:45am-6:15pm.
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, LunYi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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 2621