DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Claims 1 – 11 are pending and are under examination in this action.
2. 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(b)
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claims 1 – 12 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 regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, these claims as a whole appear to be written in an overly convoluted manner. Based on a review of the specification as originally filed, Applicant’s disclosure appears to be directed primarily to detecting different types of hover / proximity input gestures on a touch screen interface and performing specific actions in response to the different types of input gestures. However, the claims are much more vague and overly complex than necessary to capture the scope of Applicant’s purported invention. Specifically, there is no recitation of touch or hover / proximity inputs, the display screen is not recited as an element of the system, etc.
The particular language utilized by Applicant fails to satisfy the requirement that the claims “particularly point[ing] out” the Applicant’s invented subject matter. The claims as a whole lack sufficient clarity and precision to “serve the notice function” of 35 USC 112(b) by “providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent.” See MPEP §2173.02(II).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “in receiving a non-contact operation” is not recited in a grammatically correct manner. This recitation is passive, requiring nothing of the processor configuration. Accordingly, it is unclear what the processor configuration results in with regard to the “in receiving” recitation.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the recitations of “receiving a non-contact operation” and “the receiving being performed”, appears to require that the processor or computer perform a function of receiving a non-contact operation.
However, a processor and computer do not perform such a function. Instead, the user applies a non-contact operation to an operation surface which receives the application. In response, the processor and computer of claims 1 and 10 “detect” and “process” the non-contact operation applied by a user through a proximity or hover input,
Due to the improper terminology and phrasing used by the Applicant, the above recitations are indefinite.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, the recitations of “in response to a coordinate of the detected instructing object falling inside one of the operation detection areas for the operator a set number of times or more within a time period set in advance” is indefinite for at least the following reasons.
Based on a review of the specification as originally filed, this feature appears to refer to a user repetitively transitioning between hovering over and not over [back and forth] a displayed object and the object being enlarged to assist a user in selecting the displayed object. However, this is not clearly encompassed by the recitations as presently recited. It is unclear how the “number of times” of a “coordinate . . . falling inside one of the operation detection areas” relates to the enlargement, as presently recited. Additionally, Applicant’s Specification indicates that the “coordinate” falls within an operation detection area specific to one of the operators, not the operation detection area as a whole. See paragraph [0054] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed.
The particular language utilized by Applicant fails to satisfy the requirement that the claims “particularly point[ing] out” the Applicant’s invented subject matter. The claims as a whole lack sufficient clarity and precision to “serve the notice function” of 35 USC 112(b) by “providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent.” See MPEP §2173.02(II).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, the recitations of “an operation” in lines 6, 6, and 5, respectively, lack proper antecedent basis because each of these claims previously recites “a non-contact operation”. It is unclear the “non-contact operation” and “operation” recitations are referring to the same operation or different operations.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “set predetermined area” is indefinite because it is unclear what is being set. Additionally, the recitation of “the predetermined areas” is indefinite due to a lack of sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 3 – 5, the recitation of “an operation” lacks proper antecedent basis because this element is introduced in clam 1.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “a count” is indefinite for at least the following reasons. It is unclear how a “count” relates to other elements of the claims. Based on the specification, it appears that the “count” refers to a “set number of times” in which a user applies a non-contact operation to a specific operator by going back and forth with a hover / proximity input. However, there is no such connection in the claims, thereby rendering this recitation indefinite.
Regarding claims 2 – 3, 5 – 14, 16 – 20 and 24 – 28, these claims are rejected based on their respective dependence from claims 1, 4, and 15.
Examiner Interview - Recommended
5. Regarding claims 1 – 11, these claims as a whole are indefinite. The language used is unclear, imprecise, and the elements are disconnected from one another using different language for the same features. It is strongly recommended that Applicant significantly revise the claim set to plainly and clearly set forth Applicant’s purported invention.
Accordingly, the Examiner strongly recommends that Applicant contact the Examiner for an interview to discuss claim amendments to fix the issues set forth above.
Pertinent Prior Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: Nakamura et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0291814), Satou et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0278392), Takano et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0253518), Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0262398), and Nomura et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0092261).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights