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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2023 & 8/1/2024 were filed before the first office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges that the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach the elements of the independent claims. Specifically, the applicant alleges that neither reference teaches “and detects a first gesture and a second gesture from the touch operation, the second gesture being different from the first gesture, and having a fixed direction; and the controller in a case where..., decreases a control amount of the control target”. The examiner maintains that this is being taught by Sasaki, in combination with Chaudhri.
Chaudhri teaches that gestures control targets such as icons: Detecting a finger tap gesture includes detecting a finger-down event followed by detecting a finger-up (lift off) event at the same position (or substantially the same position) as the finger-down event (e.g., at the position of an icon) [Chaudhri, 0077]. That a touchscreen detects a touch contact, and attributes that touch with the position of an icon has been standard practice of touch screens since they were introduced in the 1980s. Whether a CRT or LCD, makes no difference as the interaction with on screen icons is functionally equivalent. Sasaki continues to teach various touch interactions that change function based on the direction of said touch input (Sasaki, 0394, FIG. 77). MPEP 2141.01 states: A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP 2114 II states: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 13, 15-18, and 25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri (US 20140232671 A1, published: 8/21/2014), in view of Sasaki et al. (US 20150148968 A1, published: 5/28/2015).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended): Chaudhri teaches an equipment control device, comprising a controller (Controller 122 [Chaudhri, FIG. 1A]) that controls a control target based on a touch operation by a user on a touch panel display (the device has a touch-sensitive display (also known as a "touch screen" or "touch screen display" [Chaudhri, 0007]);
wherein the display displays a display screen that includes a control target icon resembling the control target (the method further includes detecting a gesture on a respective open application icon in the first predefined area, and, in response to detecting the gesture on the respective open application icon, displaying a respective application view on the touch-sensitive display for a corresponding application in the plurality of concurrently open applications [Chaudhri, 0008]), and a plurality of touch areas that enables the touch operation for operating the control target (displaying in a first predefined area an initial group of open application icons that correspond to at least some of the plurality of concurrently open applications [Chaudhri, 0008]; Examiner's Note: wherein the plurality of icons are differentiated when selecting one versus the other via touchscreen); and
display detects the gesture in the one touch area that has been detected, corresponding to a positional relationship in the display screen between the one touch area and the control target icon (the user may make contact with touch screen 112 using any suitable object or appendage, such as a stylus, a finger, and so forth. In some embodiments, the user interface is designed to work primarily with finger-based contacts and gestures, which can be less precise than stylus-based input due to the larger area of contact of a finger on the touch screen. In some embodiments, the device translates the rough finger-based input into a precise pointer/cursor position or command for performing the actions desired by the user [Chaudhri, 0066]. Detecting a finger tap gesture includes detecting a finger-down event followed by detecting a finger-up (lift off) event at the same position (or substantially the same position) as the finger-down event (e.g., at the position of an icon) [Chaudhri, 0077]).
Chaudhri does not teach and detects a first gesture and a second gesture from the touch operation, the second gesture being different from the first gesture, and having a fixed direction; and the controller in a case where the display detects the first gesture in any one of the plurality of the touch areas, executes at least one of selecting the control target and controlling a direction of the control target; in a case where the display detects the second gesture in the one touch area, and the second gesture has a direction away from the control target icon, increases a control amount of the control target; and in a case where the display detects the second gesture in the one touch area, and the second gesture has a direction approaching the control target icon, decreases a control amount of the control target.
However, Sasaki teaches and detects a first gesture and a second gesture from the touch operation, the second gesture being different from the first gesture, and having a fixed direction; and the controller in a case where the display detects the first gesture in any one of the plurality of the touch areas, executes at least one of selecting the control target and controlling a direction of the control target; in a case where the display detects the second gesture in the one touch area, and the second gesture has a direction away from the control target icon, increases a control amount of the control target; and in a case where the display detects the second gesture in the one touch area, and the second gesture has a direction approaching the control target icon, decreases a control amount of the control target (when the user swipes on the screen 30701 in the vertical direction with a contacting object 30603 (e.g., a finger), the display control section 103 changes the direction of the air flow direction indicator 30702 in response to the swipe distance. Examples of the swipe distance here include the distance between the position of the contacting object 30603 on the display 101 that is obtained at certain measurement timing during the swipe operation, and the position of the contacting object 30603 on the display 101 that is obtained when the swipe operation is started. The expression "in response to the swipe distance" means that the level of change in the air flow direction becomes large as the swipe distance increases, and becomes small as the swipe distance drops [Sasaki, 0493, FIG. 77]; Examiner's Note: contrary gesture directions change the direction of AC airflow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of Chaudhri to include the gesture inputs to increase or decrease a direction amount of a target feature of Sasaki.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to effectively control the direction of airflow by using modern touch controls.
Claims 16 and 17, having similar elements to claim 1 are likewise rejected.
Claim 2. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein the controller orients a direction of the control target toward a location corresponding to an area where the first gesture is detected among the plurality of the touch areas ([Sasaki, FIG. 77]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated).
Claim 3. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Chaudhri further teaches wherein the first gesture is a tap or hovering (detecting a finger tap gesture [Chaudhri, 0077]).
Claim 4. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Chaudhri further teaches wherein the second gesture is a swipe or a flick (detecting a finger swipe gesture [Chaudhri, 0077]).
Claim 5. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Chaudhri further teaches wherein the touch areas are adjacent to the control target icon ([Chaudhri, FIGS. 4A-C, 5A]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated in figures indicating an iPhone like home screen filled with touchscreen selectable icons).
Claim 8. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Chaudhri further teaches wherein the control target is audio equipment, and the control amount is a sound location or volume of a sound output from the audio equipment (device 100 includes touch screen 112, menu button 204, push button 206 for powering the device on/off and locking the device, volume adjustment button(s) 208 [Chaudhri, 0151]. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim [MPEP 2114, II]).
Claim 9. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein the control target is an air conditioner, and the control amount is a direction or airflow of air output from the air conditioner (FIG. 77A to 77D are diagrams showing an example of operating a vertical air flow direction of the air conditioner using the air conditioner control screen [Sasaki, 0093]).
Claim 10. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein the control target is lighting equipment, and the control amount is illuminance or illuminated location of the lighting equipment (the application icons include a flashlight application icon [Chaudhri, 0383]. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim [MPEP 2114, II]).
Claim 13. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein the controller outputs a control command that causes the display to display an image indicating the control amount ([Sasaki, FIG. 77]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated).
Claim 15. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the Electronic equipment comprising: the equipment control device according to claim 1; the display; and an imaging device as the control target (please see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 18: The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein each of the plurality of the touch areas corresponds to at least one of the selecting the control target or controlling the direction of the control target based on the positional relationship with the control target icon on the display screen ([Sasaki, FIG. 77]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated).
Claim 25: The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Chaudhri further teaches wherein the plurality of touch areas are located between a reference area image including the control target icon and a seat image (the user may make contact with touch screen 112 using any suitable object or appendage, such as a stylus, a finger, and so forth. In some embodiments, the user interface is designed to work primarily with finger-based contacts and gestures, which can be less precise than stylus-based input due to the larger area of contact of a finger on the touch screen. In some embodiments, the device translates the rough finger-based input into a precise pointer/cursor position or command for performing the actions desired by the user [Chaudhri, 0066]. Detecting a finger tap gesture includes detecting a finger-down event followed by detecting a finger-up (lift off) event at the same position (or substantially the same position) as the finger-down event (e.g., at the position of an icon) [Chaudhri, 0077]).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14, 19, and 21-23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri (US 20140232671 A1, published: 8/21/2014) and Sasaki et al. (US 20150148968 A1, published: 5/28/2015), and in further view of Vu et al. (US 20140096003 A1, published: 4/3/2014).
Claim 6. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach wherein the display screen includes a user position icon indicating a position of the user, and the touch areas are arranged between the control target icon and the user position icon.
However, Vu teaches wherein the display screen includes a user position icon indicating a position of the user, and the touch areas are arranged between the control target icon and the user position icon (in the fade/balance graphical user interface (GUI) control screen shown in FIG. 2, two slider controls are shown. The upper slider control 207 is used to adjust the left-right balance while vertical slider control 209 is used to adjust the front-rear balance of the audio system. The user adjusts balance controller 207 by touching soft button 211 and sliding it to the left or right (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the output of the vehicle's speakers in order to achieve the desired sound distribution. Similarly the user adjusts fade controller 209 by touching soft button 213 and sliding it upwards or downwards (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the front/rear speaker output distribution [Vu, 0027, FIG. 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the display of user position feature of Vu.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to see the atmosphere and inhabitants of a controlled area.
Claim 7. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach wherein the display screen includes a right seat image representing a right seat and a left seat image representing a left seat; and the seats represented by the right seat image and the left seat image face the control target icon on the display screen.
However, Vu teaches wherein the display screen includes a right seat image representing a right seat and a left seat image representing a left seat; and the seats represented by the right seat image and the left seat image face the control target icon on the display screen (in the fade/balance graphical user interface (GUI) control screen shown in FIG. 2, two slider controls are shown. The upper slider control 207 is used to adjust the left-right balance while vertical slider control 209 is used to adjust the front-rear balance of the audio system. The user adjusts balance controller 207 by touching soft button 211 and sliding it to the left or right (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the output of the vehicle's speakers in order to achieve the desired sound distribution. Similarly the user adjusts fade controller 209 by touching soft button 213 and sliding it upwards or downwards (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the front/rear speaker output distribution [Vu, 0027, FIG. 2]. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim [MPEP 2114, II]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the display of user position feature of Vu.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to see the atmosphere and inhabitants of a controlled area.
Claim 14. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach wherein the control target is a device mounted in a vehicle, and the display screen, in a case where the traveling direction of the vehicle is taken to be the front, includes a right seat image representing a right seat and a left seat image representing a left seat.
However, Vu teaches wherein the control target is a device mounted in a vehicle, and the display screen, in a case where the traveling direction of the vehicle is taken to be the front, includes a right seat image representing a right seat and a left seat image representing a left seat (in the fade/balance graphical user interface (GUI) control screen shown in FIG. 2, two slider controls are shown. The upper slider control 207 is used to adjust the left-right balance while vertical slider control 209 is used to adjust the front-rear balance of the audio system. The user adjusts balance controller 207 by touching soft button 211 and sliding it to the left or right (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the output of the vehicle's speakers in order to achieve the desired sound distribution. Similarly the user adjusts fade controller 209 by touching soft button 213 and sliding it upwards or downwards (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the front/rear speaker output distribution [Vu, 0027, FIG. 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the display of user position feature of Vu.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to see the atmosphere and inhabitants of a controlled area.
Claim 19: The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach wherein the plurality of the touch areas is divided in a height direction of the display into a predetermined area, an upper area located above the predetermined area, and a lower area located below the predetermined area.
However, Vu teaches wherein the plurality of the touch areas is divided in a height direction of the display into a predetermined area, an upper area located above the predetermined area, and a lower area located below the predetermined area (in the fade/balance graphical user interface (GUI) control screen shown in FIG. 2, two slider controls are shown. The upper slider control 207 is used to adjust the left-right balance while vertical slider control 209 is used to adjust the front-rear balance of the audio system. The user adjusts balance controller 207 by touching soft button 211 and sliding it to the left or right (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the output of the vehicle's speakers in order to achieve the desired sound distribution. Similarly the user adjusts fade controller 209 by touching soft button 213 and sliding it upwards or downwards (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the front/rear speaker output distribution [Vu, 0027, FIG. 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the display of user position feature of Vu.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to see the atmosphere and inhabitants of a controlled area.
Claim 21: The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach wherein the control target icon is a speaker icon, and the plurality of the touch areas is divided into am area between a reference area image including the speaker icon and a right seat image and an area between the reference area image and a left seat image.
However, Vu teaches wherein the control target icon is a speaker icon, and the plurality of the touch areas is divided into am area between a reference area image including the speaker icon and a right seat image and an area between the reference area image and a left seat image (in the fade/balance graphical user interface (GUI) control screen shown in FIG. 2, two slider controls are shown. The upper slider control 207 is used to adjust the left-right balance while vertical slider control 209 is used to adjust the front-rear balance of the audio system. The user adjusts balance controller 207 by touching soft button 211 and sliding it to the left or right (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the output of the vehicle's speakers in order to achieve the desired sound distribution. Similarly the user adjusts fade controller 209 by touching soft button 213 and sliding it upwards or downwards (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the front/rear speaker output distribution [Vu, 0027, FIG. 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the display of user position feature of Vu.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to see the atmosphere and inhabitants of a controlled area.
Claim 22: The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. Chaudhri further teaches wherein the control target icon is a light icon (the application icons include a flashlight application icon [Chaudhri, 0383]). The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach and the plurality of the touch areas is divided depending on a position of a furniture image.
However, Vu teaches and the plurality of the touch areas is divided depending on a position of a furniture image (in the fade/balance graphical user interface (GUI) control screen shown in FIG. 2, two slider controls are shown. The upper slider control 207 is used to adjust the left-right balance while vertical slider control 209 is used to adjust the front-rear balance of the audio system. The user adjusts balance controller 207 by touching soft button 211 and sliding it to the left or right (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the output of the vehicle's speakers in order to achieve the desired sound distribution. Similarly the user adjusts fade controller 209 by touching soft button 213 and sliding it upwards or downwards (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the front/rear speaker output distribution [Vu, 0027, FIG. 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the display of user position feature of Vu.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to see the atmosphere and inhabitants of a controlled area.
Claim 23: The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1, wherein the control target icon is a camera icon ( digital camera application, a digital video camera application [Chaudhri, 0050]). The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach and the plurality of the touch areas is divided depending on a position of a furniture image.
However, Vu teaches and the plurality of the touch areas is divided depending on a position of a furniture image (in the fade/balance graphical user interface (GUI) control screen shown in FIG. 2, two slider controls are shown. The upper slider control 207 is used to adjust the left-right balance while vertical slider control 209 is used to adjust the front-rear balance of the audio system. The user adjusts balance controller 207 by touching soft button 211 and sliding it to the left or right (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the output of the vehicle's speakers in order to achieve the desired sound distribution. Similarly the user adjusts fade controller 209 by touching soft button 213 and sliding it upwards or downwards (i.e., utilizing a touch-and-drag motion), thereby altering the front/rear speaker output distribution [Vu, 0027, FIG. 2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the display of user position feature of Vu.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to see the atmosphere and inhabitants of a controlled area.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri (US 20140232671 A1, published: 8/21/2014) and Sasaki et al. (US 20150148968 A1, published: 5/28/2015), and in further view of Kangshang et al. (US 20160226674 A1, published: 8/4/2016).
Claim 11. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach wherein the control target is an imaging device, and the control amount is an imaging direction or a zoom magnification of the imaging device.
However, Kangshang teaches wherein the control target is an imaging device, and the control amount is an imaging direction or a zoom magnification of the imaging device (each of the front camera and the rear camera may be a fixed optical lens system or have focus and optical zoom capability [Kangshang, 0077]. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim [MPEP 2114, II]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include a camera to view a control target feature of Kangshang.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to visually confirm the control of them system.
Claim(s) 12 and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhri (US 20140232671 A1, published: 8/21/2014) and Sasaki et al. (US 20150148968 A1, published: 5/28/2015), and in further view of Salter (US 20170140482 A1, published: 5/18/2017).
Claim 12. (Previously Presented): The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach wherein the control target is a water flow generating device, and the control amount is a direction or flow rate of water flow output from the water flow generating device.
However, Salter teaches wherein the control target is a water flow generating device, and the control amount is a direction or flow rate of water flow output from the water flow generating device (display may include, but not be limited to, current speed, wind direction, wind speed, tidal flow, water temperature, water temperature gradient, depth of water, rate of change of depth, turbine speed, relative propeller speeds, propeller shaft RPM, and tiller direction [Salter, 0189]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the water flow feature of Salter.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to view and control the water flow of an air conditioner.
Claim 24: The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, teaches the equipment control device according to claim 1. The combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, does not teach wherein the control target icon is an icon for resembles a water flow generating device, and the plurality of the touch areas is divided depending on depending on a part of the body of the user to which a water flow is applied.
However, Salter teaches wherein the control target icon is an icon for resembles a water flow generating device, and the plurality of the touch areas is divided depending on depending on a part of the body of the user to which a water flow is applied (display may include, but not be limited to, current speed, wind direction, wind speed, tidal flow, water temperature, water temperature gradient, depth of water, rate of change of depth, turbine speed, relative propeller speeds, propeller shaft RPM, and tiller direction [Salter, 0189]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the touch control invention of the combination of Chaudhri and Sasaki, to include the water flow feature of Salter.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to view and control the water flow of an air conditioner.
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 SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172