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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed on 01/23/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10, 19 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Examiner Notes
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10-11, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al. (“Bernstein”, US PG-Pub. 2016/0364091 A1) in view of Lee et al. (“Lee”, US PG-Pub. 2017/0329509 A1).
Re-claim 1,
Bernstein teaches a method for displaying handwritten or drawn content, applied to an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a touchscreen, and the touchscreen displays a target screen, the method comprising:
detecting a contact gesture on the touchscreen, wherein the contact gesture is a swipe gesture (Fig. 21N, [0134, 0493]. Bernstein describes the swipe gesture 2106 is detected to activate the drawing application. The contact swipe gesture can be either finger swipe gesture or stylus swipe gesture as recited in paragraph [0134]);
enabling a handwriting or drawing mode based on a determination that the swipe gesture meets a preset condition, wherein the preset condition comprises at least one of the following: a duration of the swipe gesture exceeds a threshold, a trace length of the swipe gesture exceeds a threshold, or a trace shape of the swipe gesture is a preset trace shape type (Fig. 21N, [0493]. Bernstein describes the swipe gesture 2106 is detected to activate the drawing application. The swipe gesture is the preset trace arrow type).
in response to the enabling of the handwriting or drawing mode, displaying the drawing application (Figs. 21N-21O, [0493]. Bernstein describes the swipe gesture 2106 is detected to activate the drawing application and drawing application is displayed shown in Fig. 21O)
detecting a handwriting or drawing gesture on the touchscreen; and displaying, on the target screen, handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the detected handwriting or drawing gesture touchscreen (Figs. 21J, 21K, [0492]. Bernstein describes user can draw and display the drawing content (i.e. mark 2124, 2126, 2128) on the drawing entry area 2118).
Bernstein fails to teach:
displaying a movement trace of the swipe gesture on the touchscreen based on a contact region of the swipe gesture on the touchscreen; and
in response to a preset condition meets, stopping displaying the movement trace.
However, Lee teaches:
displaying a movement trace of the swipe gesture on the touchscreen based on a contact region of the swipe gesture on the touchscreen (Figs. 2, 4, [0011, 0035]. Lee describes the touch gesture movement trace 211 is displayed shown figure 2); and
in response to a preset condition meets, stopping displaying the movement trace (Figs. 2, 4, [0011, 0035, 0038]. Lee describes the touch gesture movement trace 211 is removed in response to no additional touch input is applied after a predetermined threshold time elapse that indicate the concept of removing the gesture movement trace in response to a preset condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact gesture to activate a drawing function teachings of Bernstein with the displaying and removing the gesture moving trace teaching of Lee to clear out the input gesture trace for better viewing after confirming the gesture operation function
Re-claim 2,
in addition to what Bernstein-Lee teaches the method of claim 1, Bernstein also teaches the method, wherein the preset trace shape type is a circle-type trace shape or an arrow-type trace shape (Fig. 21N, [0493]. Bernstein describes the arrow-type trace shape 2106).
Re-claim 5,
in addition to what Bernstein-Lee teaches the method of claim 1, Bernstein also teaches the method, further comprising: presenting, in response to enabling the handwriting or drawing mode, a target prompt indicating that the handwriting or drawing mode is enabled, and the target prompt comprising at least one of: a vibration prompt, a text prompt, a sound prompt, or a picture prompt (Figs. 21D, 21O, [0488]. Bernstein describes the drawing toolbar 2130 (i.e. picture prompt) is displayed indicating the drawing mode is activated).
Re-claim 10,
Bernstein teaches an electronic device, wherein the device comprises comprising: a touchscreen; a memory configured to store processor-executable instructions; a processing circuitry; a bus connecting the processing circuitry, the memory, and the touchscreen (Fig. 3, [0208]. Bernstein describes the device 300 having the Touchscreen Display 340, the Memory 370, the CPUs 310, the Buses 320); and the processing circuitry configured to execute the processor-executable instructions so as to perform a method having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 11,
in addition to what Bernstein-Lee teaches in claim 10, claim 11 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 14,
in addition to what Bernstein-Lee teaches in claim 10, claim 14 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 5; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 19,
It is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein in view of Lee, and further in view of Soli et al. (“Soli”, US PG-Pub. 2020/0356250 A1).
Re-claim 6,
Bernstein-Lee teaches the method in claim 1, but Bernstein fails to teach a method, further comprising: maintaining, in response to enabling the handwriting or drawing mode, content displayed on the target screen by: taking a screenshot of content displayed in the target screen to obtain a first image; and displaying the first image on the target screen.
However, Soli teaches:
maintaining, in response to enabling the handwriting or drawing mode, content displayed on the target screen by: taking a screenshot of content displayed in the target screen to obtain a first image; and displaying the first image on the target screen (Fig. 8G, [0375]. Soli describes the screenshot image 813 (as a first image) is displayed including the overlaid annotation drawing content 834).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact gesture to activate a drawing function teachings of modified Bernstein with the screenshot image taken teaching of Soli to avoid multiple operations (i.e. filtering operation) on separate contents (i.e. original text and overlaid annotation) to utilizes less processing power and battery usage.
Re-claim 7,
Bernstein-Lee-Soli teaches the method in claim 6, but Bernstein fails to teach a method, wherein the displaying, on the target screen, handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the detected handwriting or drawing gesture comprises displaying, at an upper layer of the first image, the handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the handwriting or drawing gesture, the method further comprising: receiving a target instruction to save the handwritten or drawn content; and saving, in response to the target instruction, the first image and the handwritten or drawn content displayed at the upper layer.
However, Soli teaches:
wherein the displaying, on the target screen, handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the detected handwriting or drawing gesture comprises displaying, at an upper layer of the first image, the handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the handwriting or drawing gesture, the method further comprising: receiving a target instruction to save the handwritten or drawn content; and saving, in response to the target instruction, the first image and the handwritten or drawn content displayed at the upper layer (Fig. 8G, 8M, [0285]. Soli describes the input 846 instruction on the “Save to Files” button 844i to save the screenshot image 813 (as first image) and
the overlaid annotation drawing content 834).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact gesture to activate a drawing function teachings of modified Bernstein with the screenshot image taken teaching of Soli to avoid multiple operations (i.e. filtering operation) on separate contents (i.e. original text and overlaid annotation) to utilizes less processing power and battery usage.
Re-claim 8,
Bernstein-Lee-Soli teaches the method in claim 6, but Bernstein fails to teach a method, wherein the keeping maintaining content displayed in the target screen further comprises: obtaining pixel information of content displayed on the target screen at a target moment; and maintaining on the target screen, display of the content corresponding to the pixel information.
However, Soli teaches:
wherein the keeping maintaining content displayed in the target screen further comprises: obtaining pixel information of content displayed on the target screen at a target moment; and maintaining on the target screen, display of the content corresponding to the pixel information (Figs. 8G-8J, [0281-0283, 0375]. Soli describes the screenshot image 813 (as a second image) is displayed including the overlaid annotation drawing content 834 and the opacity filtering layer 838 or 840 that indicates the pixel information of the content of the screenshot image 813).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact gesture to activate a drawing function teachings of modified Bernstein with the screenshot image taken teaching of Soli to avoid multiple operations (i.e. filtering operation) on separate contents (i.e. original text and overlaid annotation) to utilizes less processing power and battery usage.
Re-claim 9,
Bernstein-Lee-Soli teaches the method in claim 8, but Bernstein fails to teach a method, wherein the displaying, on the target screen, handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the detected handwriting or drawing gesture comprises displaying, at an upper layer of the content corresponding to the pixel information, the handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the handwriting or drawing gesture, the method further comprising: receiving a target instruction to save the handwritten or drawn content; and taking, in response to the target instruction, a screenshot of the target screen and saving a second image obtained by taking the screenshot.
However, Soli teaches:
wherein the displaying, on the target screen, handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the detected handwriting or drawing gesture comprises displaying, at an upper layer of the content corresponding to the pixel information, the handwritten or drawn content corresponding to the handwriting or drawing gesture, the method further comprising: receiving a target instruction to save the handwritten or drawn content; and taking, in response to the target instruction, a screenshot of the target screen and saving a second image obtained by taking the screenshot (Figs. 8I-8J, [0375]. Soli describes the screenshot image 813 (as a second image) is displayed including the overlaid annotation drawing content 834 and the opacity filtering layer 838 or 840 that indicates the pixel information of the content of the screenshot image 813; Fig. 8M, [0285]. Soli describes the input 846 instruction on the “Save to Files” button 844i to save the screenshot image 813 (as second image)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact gesture to activate a drawing function teachings of modified Bernstein with the screenshot image taken teaching of Soli to avoid multiple operations (i.e. filtering operation) on separate contents (i.e. original text and overlaid annotation) to utilizes less processing power and battery usage.
Re-claim 15,
in addition to what Bernstein-Lee teaches in claim 10, claim 15 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 16,
in addition to what Bernstein-Lee-Soli teaches in claim 15, claim 16 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 17,
in addition to what Bernstein-Lee-Soli teaches in claim 15, claim 17 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 8; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 18,
in addition to what Bernstein-Lee-Soli teaches in claim 17, claim 18 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 9; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein in view of Lee, and further in view of Hauenstein et al. (“Hauenstein”, US PG-Pub. 2018/0335937 A1).
Re-claim 4,
Bernstein-Lee teaches the method in claim 1, but Bernstein fails to teach a method, wherein the movement trace comprises a start position, a first trace segment, and a second trace segment,
wherein the first trace segment and the second trace segment are different trace segments on the movement trace,
wherein a distance between the first trace segment and the start position is less than a distance between the second trace segment and the start position, and
wherein a display transparency of the first trace segment is lower than a display transparency of the second trace segment.
However, Hauenstein teaches:
wherein the movement trace comprises a start position, a first trace segment, and a second trace segment, wherein the first trace segment and the second trace segment are different trace segments on the movement trace, wherein a distance between the first trace segment and the start position is less than a distance between the second trace segment and the start position, and wherein a display transparency of the first trace segment is lower than a display transparency of the second trace segment (Figs, 6Q, 6U-6W, [0312]. Hauenstein describes the display of an object having first portion and second portion that have different length and opacity. Since the claim having only the display of an object or figure and does not having any functionality and purpose associated with it, examiner considers it is a non-utility invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact gesture to activate a drawing function teachings of modified Bernstein with displaying as object having different portion and opacity teaching of Hauenstein for distinguished visual viewing to present to user.
Re-claim 13,
in addition to what Bernstein teaches in claim 10, claim 13 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 20,
in addition to what Bernstein teaches in claim 19, claim 20 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on 01/23/2026 with respect to amended claims 1, 10, and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure including Mesquich Havilio (US Patent 9612740 B2).
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 TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights