DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/16/2026.
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 .
Specification
The new title of the invention provided on 3/16/2026 is acceptable.
Claims Status
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17 and 21 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are newly canceled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 are newly amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada; Satoshi et al. (hereinafter Terada – US 20150331594 A1) in view of Hogan; Edward P.A. (hereinafter Hogan – US 20110163968 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Terada teaches:
A method for controlling an application, performed by an electronic device, (fig. 2 and ¶ 56)
and comprising:
determining touch point information based on a touch instruction, wherein the touch point information comprises a number of touch points and motion information of each touch point, and the motion information of the touch point is configured to characterize a motion state of the touch point; (a reducing touch operation, e.g., a pinch operation, is detected on a displayed window, fig. 4 and ¶¶ 70-71. A pinch operation is detected, and is characterized by two touch points and motion [e.g., pinch in], as illustrated in figs. 7-8, ¶¶ 97 and 98)
and switching a display state of the application to a second display state based on a current first display state of the application and the touch point information, wherein a first one of the first display state and the second display state is a small window mode, and a second one of the first display state and the second display state is a first mode, and a display window of the first mode is larger than a display window of the small window mode (after receiving a pinch in operation, the window is displayed in a reduced size, ¶ 96 and figs. 7-8, also referred to as a “special downsized display mode”, ¶ 79. Window in fig. 7 (R100) is displayed in a larger size before the downsizing reflected in fig. 8:R110, ¶¶ 96-97)
wherein the switching the display state of the application to the second display state based on the current first display state of the application and the touch point information comprises: switching the display state of the application to the small window mode in a case that a current display state of the application is the first mode, (the process of reducing window begins before the window is reduced, figs 7-8, so switching the display state of the application to the small window mode occurs in a case that a current display state of the application is the first mode)
the number of touch points satisfies a preset number and a motion direction of each touch point indicates that the touch point is in an inward retraction motion; (pinch-in two fingers, ¶¶ 6 and 70, figs. 7 and 8).
wherein the number of touch points satisfying the preset number and the motion direction of each touch point indicating that the touch point is in the inward retraction motion comprise:
the number of touch points is three, and the touch point is in the inward retraction motion in a case that the following conditions are satisfied:
a first condition of existence of an included angle greater than a preset angle among a plurality of included angles formed by intersection of motion directions of any two touch points; and
a second condition of a distance between starting positions of any two touch points being greater than a distance between target positions of the two touch points during motion.
Terada further teaches that gestures can have three or more points of contacts, ¶ 150.
Terada does not appear to expressly teach, but Hogan teaches:
wherein the number of touch points satisfying the preset number and the motion direction of each touch point indicating that the touch point is in the inward retraction motion comprise:
the number of touch points is three, (describes two-contact pinch gestures, ¶ 183 and figs 5H-5I, mentions these two-contact pinch gestures in a list of two-contact gestures, and then explains that these two-contact gestures [e.g., two-contact pinch gestures] can require a “third contact” [converting them to three-contact pinch gesture] in order to distinguish them from the selection gesture in figs. 5B-5D, see ¶ 203 and figs. 5B-5D. This reference and a typical three-point pinch gesture inherently involves exactly three touch points because it is defined as the functional prehension pattern using the thumb, index finger, and middle finger to form a stable "three-jaw chuck")
and the touch point is in the inward retraction motion (three point pinch gestures, ¶ 203 and figs. 5B-5D. This reference and a typical three-point pinch gesture reflect that the touch points are in an inward retraction motion because the physical action of pinching requires all three digits to move from a more open, splayed starting position to converge and apply force toward a central target point (e.g., to grasp an object), which is an inward, closing motion)
in a case that the following conditions are satisfied:
a first condition of existence of an included angle greater than a preset angle among a plurality of included angles formed by intersection of motion directions of any two touch points; (three point pinch gestures, ¶ 203 and figs. 5B-5D. This reference and a typical three-point pinch gesture inherently reflects that the first condition (existence of an included angle greater than a preset angle) is met because the physical arrangement and independent motion of the thumb, index, and middle fingers on a hand naturally create significant angles between their motion vectors as they converge on a central point, which are substantially larger than a minimal "preset" threshold angle, e.g., greater than zero to differentiate from parallel swiping actions.)
and a second condition of a distance between starting positions of any two touch points being greater than a distance between target positions of the two touch points during motion (three point pinch gestures, ¶ 203 and figs. 5B-5D. This reference and a typical three-point pinch gesture inherently reflects that the second condition (distance between starting positions of any two touch points being greater than a distance between target positions) is inherently met because the gesture is a closing motion designed to reduce the distance between the digits' tips to either touch or grasp an object, thus the initial separation is always greater than the final, closer, or zero separation at the target. The core purpose of a pinch gesture is to bring points of contact closer together, typically to select or manipulate an object in a virtual space, meaning the target distance is inherently smaller than the starting distance. This movement is a direct simulation of a physical pinching motion, which by definition involves reducing the separation between the fingertips to grasp or narrow an item).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Terada to include wherein the number of touch points satisfying the preset number and the motion direction of each touch point indicating that the touch point is in the inward retraction motion comprise: the number of touch points is three, and the touch point is in the inward retraction motion in a case that the following conditions are satisfied: a first condition of existence of an included angle greater than a preset angle among a plurality of included angles formed by intersection of motion directions of any two touch points; and a second condition of a distance between starting positions of any two touch points being greater than a distance between target positions of the two touch points during motion, as taught by Hogan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the accuracy of the method, since using three or more contacts in a pinching gesture is allows a device to accurately distinguish the pinch gestures from other gestures, Hogan ¶ 203.
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Terada further teaches:
further comprising: adjusting a size of the display window of the small window mode according to a motion position of the touch point, in a case that the display state of the application is switched to the small window mode. (after receiving a pinch in operation, the window is displayed in a reduced size, ¶ 96 and figs. 7-8, a first display controller that is configured to determine a display magnification ratio based on the operation quantity [a motion position of the touch point] of the first operation and display a display image of the content that has been subjected to a first image processing for enlargement or reducing by the display magnification ratio, ¶¶ 15 and 72.)
Independent Claims 9 and 17:
Claim(s) 9 and 17 are directed to an electronic device storage medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 13 and 21:
The rejection of claims 9 and 17 are incorporated. Claim(s) 13 and 21 is directed to an electronic device and storage medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 5, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Comments/Response to Arguments
The 112(b) rejections of Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are overcome by cancelation.
The 102/103 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
First, arguments related to previous 102 rejection are moot, as the present application doesn’t contain 102 rejections.
Second, the applicant alleges that the limitations of previous claim 4, which are now incorporated into claim 1, are not taught by Hogan because Hogan ¶ 203 and figs. 5B-5D describes concurrent contacts for cell selection, rather determining an inward retraction, and adjusting the size of the display interface. Furthermore, the applicant suggest that the examiner acknowledged that these features were not taught by Terada. Remarks Pg(s) 10-13.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
As explained above (and in previous office action – hereinafter “POA”), Terada teaches the identification of a pinch gesture (which is a detection of inward retraction motion) for the purpose of resizing an interface [windows], see ¶¶ 6 and 70, figs. 7 and 8. Therefore, in essence, the Terada simply fails to teach the conditions related to a “three-contact” pinch gesture, which as should have been sufficiently clear from the mapping in POA, are taught by Terada-Hogan.
Concerning aspects of resizing an interface and determining an inward retraction motion, the applicant attack Hogan individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Although Hogan figs. 5B-5D describes concurrent contacts for cell selection, Hogan describes two-contact pinch gestures, ¶ 183 and figs 5H-5I, mentions these two-contact pinch gestures in a list of two-contact gestures, presented in cited Paragraph 203, and then explains that these two-contact gestures [e.g., two-contact pinch gestures] can require a “third contact” [converting them to three-contact pinch gesture] in order to accurately distinguish these two-contact gestures from the three (or more) contact cell-selection gesture described with reference to FIGS. 5B-5D, see ¶ 203 and figs. 5B-5D.
Third, the applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining claims rely on the argument(s) above and are also unpersuasive at least for the reason(s) provided above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Sosinski; Joseph W. US 20130227472 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing adjusting window sizes based on pinch gestures, ¶ 169-170 and figs. 5B-5C.
Hotelling; Steve et al. US 20060026536 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing the resizing of windows using multi-finger gestures, ¶¶ 80 and 99 and fig. 12.
Jin; Young-kyu et al. US 20150309689 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing switching display size mode using pinch gestures, ¶¶ 83-84 and 44-45.
Ito; Hikaru US 20130222340 A1, is pertinent to claims 2, 4, 7 and 8 for disclosing calculations of angles differences between movement vectors, ¶ 193 and fig. 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights