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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed September 30, 2008 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the PTO-1449 is included in this correspondence.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charbiwala et al. (US Pub. 2017/0031463 A1) in view of Hauenstein et al. (US Pub. 2019/0265828 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Charbiwala teaches a method of operating a user interface of a device (Fig.2, a method of determining a pointer position for a mobile device display screen), wherein the user interface comprises a hover and touch sensitive display device, the method comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (Pointer)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
384
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig.2 of Charbiwala reproduced)
receiving user information from the hover and touch sensitive display device (Figs. 1-2, a mobile phone comprises a touch/hover sensitive display screen. Fig.2, the mobile phone detects a touch location when a distance (height) between a user’s finger and the display screen is zero (a display screen 203a). In addition, the mobile phone detects a hover when a distance between the user’s finger and the display screen is greater than zero (e.g., display screens 203b and 203c)), wherein the user information corresponds to one or more interactions of a first object (the user’s finger, Fig.2) with the hover and touch sensitive display device ((Fig.2), para. [0020-0028]);
detecting that the received information corresponds to a hover control gesture (the display screens 203b and 203c, Fig.2), wherein the hover control gesture comprises a swipe gesture followed by hover information (Fig.2, a hover control gesture comprises a touch gesture (e.g., a first perspective view 203a) and a hover gesture (e.g., second and third perspective views 203b and 203c). It is noted that, when the finger touches the screen (e.g., view 203a), a location of the pointer is corresponding to a touch location of the user’s finger on the touch screen. Therefore, the user may perform a swipe gesture when the finger touches and moves on the touch screen to move the pointer on the display; see claims 6 and 17 of Charbiwala ); and
wherein the hover control gesture comprises hover information (a distance (height) between the user’s finger and the display screen); and in response to said detecting, operating the device in a hover control mode that comprises using continuously supplied hover information to control placement of a cursor display on the hover and touch sensitive display device while the first object remains above the surface of, and not in contact with, the hover and touch sensitive display device (Fig.2, when the distance (height) between the user’s finger and the display screen is greater than zero (e.g., x and y), a pointer is displayed at a location according to the height of the user’s finger),
wherein using the continuously supplied hover information to control placement of the cursor display on the hover and touch sensitive display device comprises:
moving the cursor display in one of two directions along a line of movement (see Fig.2, the pointer is moving in a line of movement according to the height of finger), wherein a placement of the cursor display along the line of movement is proportional to a detected height of the first object from the hover and touch sensitive display device (Para. [0015, 0019, 0021, 0022, and 0028], a position of the pointer is in proportion to the height of the user’s finger. For example, the greater the height of the user’s finger (e.g., a second height y is greater than a first height x), the farther the position of the pointer (e.g., a pointer in the display screen 203c is farther than a pointer in the display screen 203b)).
Charbiwala does not teach moving the cursor display along a line of movement in corresponding with a trajectory of the detected swipe gesture.
Hauenstein teaches moving the cursor display along a line of movement in corresponding with a trajectory of the detected swipe gesture (Fig.7B, Figs. 11C-11E; Hauenstein discloses a method of detecting a stylus 203 located within a hover distance from a touch sensitive surface 651. When the stylus is within the hover distance, a visual indicator 706-a is displayed corresponding to a position 701 on the touch sensitive surface. It is understood that the visual indicator 706 would be a cursor or a pointer. In Figs.7G, 7H, and 7L; a user may move the stylus 203 in a left direction. In response to the movement of the stylus to the left, the visual indicator 706-a is moved to the left in corresponding to the trajectory of the movement of the stylus 203. In another example, Figs.7N-7R, the visual indicator 706 is moved in accordance with a trajectory of a movement of the stylus 203).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala of determining a power position based on a height of a user’s finger to include the teaching of Hauenstein of controlling a visual indicator to be displaced in a direction according to a trajectory of a movement of a stylus. The motivation would have been in order to enable the user to control a movement of a pointer in a desired direction. Thus, it would improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 2; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Charbiwala further teaches an initial placement of the cursor display following said detecting is a detected location at which the first object performing the swipe gesture lifted off of the hover and touch sensitive display device (Fig.2, a hover gesture (e.g., pointer in a view 203b corresponding to finger 207b) is detected after a touch gesture (e.g., pointer in a view 203b corresponding to finger 270a)).
Regarding claim 4; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Charbiwala further teaches the placement of the cursor display along the line of movement is continuously adjusted in correspondence with changes in detected height of the first object from the hover and touch sensitive display device (para. [0015, 0019, 0028, a placement of the pointer is continuously adjusted based on detecting a height of the user’s finger).
Regarding claim 6; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Charbiwala does not teach detecting that the hover information indicates a movement of the first object parallel to a plane of the hover and touch sensitive display device, and in response thereto adjusting the placement of the cursor display in a direction that is orthogonal to the line of movement.
Hauenstein teaches detecting that the hover information indicates a movement of the first object parallel to a plane of the hover and touch sensitive display device (Figs. 11C-11E; Hauenstein discloses a method of detecting a hover gesture including a lateral movement of a finger 734 parallel to a plane of the touch screen 112. In particular, a distance between the finger 734 and the touch screen 112 is not changed during the hover gesture), and in response thereto adjusting the placement of the cursor display in a direction that is orthogonal to a vertical direction (Figs. 11C-11E; in response to the hover input, a cursor 1110 is displaced in a lateral movement in accordance with the movement of the finger 734).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala of determining a pointer position according to a position of a user’s finger to include the teaching in the second embodiment of Hauenstein of detecting a hover gesture including a movement of a finger parallel to a touch screen; and controlling a cursor to move in a direction according to the movement of the hover gesture. Therefore, in the system of Charbiwala as modified by Hauenstein, the user may perform a touch event followed by a hover gesture. A pointer would be displayed in a line of movement in according to the trajectory of the hover gesture. Then, if the user performs another hover gesture parallel to the touch screen in a direction perpendicular to the line of movement, the pointer would be moved in a direction perpendicular to the line of movement. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 7; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 6 as discussed above.
Charbiwala does not teach adjusting the placement of the cursor display in the direction that is orthogonal to the line of movement by an amount that is proportional to an amount of movement of the object that is parallel to the plane of the hover and touch sensitive display device.
Hauenstein teaches adjusting the placement of the cursor display by an amount that is proportional to an amount of movement of the object that is parallel to the plane of the hover and touch sensitive display device (Figs. 11C-11E; Hauenstein discloses a method of detecting a hover gesture including a lateral movement of a finger 734 parallel to a plane of the touch screen 112. In particular, a distance between the finger 734 and the touch screen 112 is not changed during the hover gesture. In response to the hover input, a cursor 1110 is displaced in a lateral movement in accordance with the movement of the finger 734. An amount of movement of the cursor 1110 is proportional to an amount of movement of the finger 734).
The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 16; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches an apparatus for operating a user interface of a device, wherein the user interface comprises a hover and touch sensitive display device, the apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to receive user information from the hover and touch sensitive display device, wherein the user information corresponds to one or more interactions of a first object with the hover and touch sensitive display device; circuitry configured to detect that the received information corresponds to a hover control gesture, wherein the hover control gesture comprises a swipe gesture followed by hover information; and circuitry configured to operate, in response to said detecting, the device in a hover control mode that comprises using continuously supplied hover information to control placement of a cursor display on the hover and touch sensitive display device while the first object remains above the surface of, and not in contact with, the hover and touch sensitive display device, wherein using the continuously supplied hover information to control placement of the cursor display on the hover and touch sensitive display device comprises: moving the cursor display in one of two directions along a line of movement in correspondence with a trajectory of the detected swipe gesture, wherein a placement of the cursor display along the line of movement is proportional to a detected height of the first object from the hover and touch sensitive display device (similar to the analysis of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 2. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 4. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 4.
Regarding claim 21; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 6. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 6.
Regarding claim 22; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 21 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 7. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 7.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charbiwala et al. (US Pub. 2017/0031463 A1) in view of Hauenstein et al. (US Pub. 2019/0265828 A1) as applied to claims 4 and 19 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (US Pub. 2018/0032154 A1).
Regarding claim 5; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 4 as discussed above.
Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein further teaches the placement of the cursor display along the line of movement is continuously adjusted further in correspondence with a detected height of the first object from the hover and touch sensitive display device changes (see the analysis of claim 1).
Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein does not teach the placement of the cursor in correspondence with a speed at which the first object changes.
Yao teaches the placement of the cursor in correspondence with a speed at which the first object changes (Fig.3, para. [0030 and 0037-0040], Yao discloses a method of displaying a cursor icon C in according to a position of a digital pen 10. In particular, a computer device 20 can compare a coordinate position (X, Y) and a displacement amount (ΔX, ΔY) of the digital pen 10 to obtain a shift direction and a shift velocity of the digital pen 10 to control the shifting of the cursor icon C on the display 24 corresponding to the shift direction and the shift velocity).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein of determining a pointer position according to a position of a user’s finger to include the teaching of Yao of controlling a placement of a cursor icon in according to a shift direction and a shift velocity of a digital pen. The motivation would have been in order to enable the user to control the placement of the pointer more conveniently.
Regarding claim 20; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 5. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 5.
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charbiwala et al. (US Pub. 2017/0031463 A1) in view of Hauenstein et al. (US Pub. 2019/0265828 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Cheong et al. (US Pub. 2015/0293592 A1).
Regarding claim 8; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein does not teach the method comprises one of: estimating the trajectory from input touch information obtained over a predefined distance of the hover and touch sensitive display device; and estimating the trajectory from input touch information obtained over a predefined period of time.
Cheong teaches the method comprises one of: estimating the trajectory from input touch information obtained over a predefined distance of the hover and touch sensitive display device; and estimating the trajectory from input touch information obtained over a predefined period of time (para. [0282], Cheong discloses a method of detecting a touch drag event and a hover position movement event; and predicting a direction and speed of the touch drag event and the hover position movement event).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein of determining a pointer position according to a position of a user’s finger to include the method of Cheong of predicting a direction and speed of a touch drag event and a hover position movement event. The motivation would have been in order to provide haptic feedback in correspondence to the input event.
Regarding claim 23; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 8. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 8.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charbiwala et al. (US Pub. 2017/0031463 A1) in view of Hauenstein et al. (US Pub. 2019/0265828 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Weksler et al. (US Pub. 2021/0096737 A1).
Regarding claim 9; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein does not teach using radar information to detect the height of the first object from the hover and touch sensitive display device.
Weksler teaches using radar information to detect the height of the first object from the hover and touch sensitive display device (para. [0007, 0044, 0064, 0067, and 0072], a hover event may be detected by using radar transceiver).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein of determining a pointer position according to a position of a user’s finger to include the teaching of Weksler of using radar transceiver to detect a hover event. The motivation would have been in order to improve the detection precision.
Regarding claim 24; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 9. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 9.
Claims 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charbiwala et al. (US Pub. 2017/0031463 A1) in view of Hauenstein et al. (US Pub. 2019/0265828 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Garelli et al. (US Pub. 2021/0149445 A1).
Regarding claim 10; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein does not teach while in hover control mode, detecting that the cursor display is pointing to an executable function of the device when a first predefined number of taps on the device by a second object is detected, and in response thereto causing the device to perform the executable function.
Garelli teaches while in hover control mode, detecting that the cursor display is pointing to an executable function of the device when a first predefined number of taps on the device by a second object is detected, and in response thereto causing the device to perform the executable function (Fig.5, para. [0040], a user’s finger may be hovering over a particular location to highlight a desired option. Then, the user may perform a tap or other touch event to select or activate the highlighted option).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein of determining a pointer position according to a position of a user’s finger to include the teaching of Garelli of using a hovering gesture to highlight a desired option; and performing a tap input to select the highlighted option. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 25; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 25 is substantially similar to claim 10. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 10.
Claims 11, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charbiwala et al. (US Pub. 2017/0031463 A1) in view of Hauenstein et al. (US Pub. 2019/0265828 A1) as applied to claims 1, 16, and 17 above, and further in view of Gildfind (US Pub. 2012/0254808 A1).
Regarding claim 11; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein does not teach operating the device in the hover control mode is enabled in response to a detection of a predefined enabling user input to the device.
Gildfind teaches operating the device in the hover control mode is enabled in response to a detection of a predefined enabling user input to the device (Fig.2, para. [0034-0036, 0038, and 0054], Gildfind discloses a method of enabling a user’s finger 78 to activate a hover mode by performing a touch gesture in a designated area 82).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein of determining a pointer position according to a position of a user’s finger to include the teaching of Gildfind of enabling a hover mode by performing a touch gesture at a designated area on a touch screen. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 26; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 26 is substantially similar to claim 11. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 11.
Regarding claim 28; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 17 as discussed above. Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein does not teach circuitry configured to cause operation of the device to leave the hover control mode in response to a detection that the first object is touching the hover and touch sensitive display device.
Gildfind teaches circuitry configured to cause operation of the device to leave the hover control mode in response to a detection that the first object is touching the hover and touch sensitive display device (Fig.2, para. [0034], Gildfind discloses a method of disabling the hover mode by performing another single touch gesture in the designated area 82).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein of determining a pointer position according to a position of a user’s finger to include the teaching of Gildfind of disabling a hover mode by performing another touch gesture at the designated area on the touch screen. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charbiwala et al. (US Pub. 2017/0031463 A1) in view of Hauenstein et al. (US Pub. 2019/0265828 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Gildfind (US Pub. 2012/0254808 A1) and Feng et al. (US Pub. 2016/0011682 A1).
Regarding claim 27; Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein teaches the apparatus of claim 17 as discussed above. Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein does not teach the circuitry configured to operate the device in the hover control mode is enabled in response to a detection of a predefined enabling user input to the device, and wherein the predefined enabling user input to the device comprises any one or more of: input generated by a swipe movement from a bottom point to a second point on the hover and touch sensitive display device followed by a second predefined number of taps on the device by a second object; input generated by a first swipe movement followed by a second swipe movement; input generated by a predefined movement of the device while maintaining the first object on the hover and touch sensitive display device; and input generated by analysis of voice input.
Gildfind teaches the circuitry configured to operate the device in the hover control mode is enabled in response to a detection of a predefined enabling user input to the device (Fig.2, para. [0034-0036, 0038, and 0054], Gildfind discloses a method of enabling a user’s finger 78 to activate a hover mode by performing a touch gesture in a designated area 82).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein of determining a pointer position according to a position of a user’s finger to include the teaching of Gildfind of enabling a hover mode by performing a touch gesture at a designated area on a touch screen. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience.
Feng teaches the predefined enabling user input to the device comprises any one or more of: input generated by a swipe movement from a bottom point to a second point on the hover and touch sensitive display device followed by a second predefined number of taps on the device by a second object; input generated by a first swipe movement followed by a second swipe movement; input generated by a predefined movement of the device while maintaining the first object on the hover and touch sensitive display device; and input generated by analysis of voice input (para. 0028 and 0044], Feng discloses a method of switching from one input mode to another input mode in response to a voice command).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Charbiwala in view of Hauenstein and Gildfind of enabling a hover input mode in response to a touch gesture to include the teaching of Feng of switching between input modes in response to a voice command. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights