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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,6-9,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DAGAR (US 2012/0299853).
Regarding claim 1, DAGAR discloses an information output apparatus (abstract) comprising: a first information output portion configured to output first tactile information by actuating one or more first information output units to protrude or retract (Figure 3-4D; paragraph 12, 20, 32-34, 37-40; the height of various regions and/or portions of a haptic interface may be varied to form different functional regions and/or portions of the haptic interface); a second information output portion disposed at a different position from the first information output portion and configured to output second tactile information by actuating one or more second information output units to protrude or retract (Figure 3-4D; paragraph 42-44, 49-53; portions corresponding to any area or region of 420 or 440 including various portions within those regions (e.g. 446d, 444d-3, 444d-2, 440d-1, 440d-2, etc.)); an operating unit including a plurality of operation keys 440, 444 (Figure 4A-4D); and a processor 512, 612 configured to generate, in response to a compatible external device 518, 618 being connected, an actuation signal for one or more of the first information output unit and the second information output unit, based on compatibility information received from the external device, transmit the generated actuation signal to one or more of the first information output portion and the second information output portion, and perform a function corresponding to one or more operation keys selected from among the plurality of operation keys (Figure 3, paragraph 42-44, 49-53, 56-58, 64; the height of various regions and/or portions of a haptic interface may be varied to form different functional regions and/or portions of the haptic interface).
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. DAGAR further discloses wherein the processor is configured to change one or more of the first tactile information output to the first information output portion and the second tactile information output to the second information output portion based on the compatibility information, according to the one or more operation keys selected from among the plurality of operation keys (Figure 3; paragraph 42-44, 49-53).
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. DAGAR further discloses wherein the processor is configured to control an operation of the external device according to the one or more operation keys selected from among the plurality of operation keys (paragraph 56-58, 64).
Regarding claim 6, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. DAGAR further discloses based on type wherein the processor is configured to perform a function of the one or more operation keys differently depending on a type of the external device (paragraph 28-33, 42-43; specific types of functions may be performed and/or via which certain types of information may be output (e.g., a different type of information than the type of information provided by and/or in the valley).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. DAGAR further discloses match info of screen wherein the external device is an interactive information processing device including an area divided into a plurality of grid cells constituting a user interface panel, and the processor is configured to allocate the plurality of grid cells to the first information output portion, one-to-one match coordinate information related to the grid cells with coordinate information related to first information output cells included in the first information output portion, and generate an actuation signal for the first information output unit based on the compatibility information through the one-to-one matching (Figure 4A-4D; paragraph 27-28, 30, 38,40; grid cells corresponding actuator areas).
Regarding claim 8, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. DAGAR further discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate a first actuation signal for actuating the first information output unit based on an image extracted from the compatibility information, and a second actuation signal for actuating the second information output unit based on a text extracted from the compatibility information (Figure 4A-4D).
Regarding claim 9, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. DAGAR further discloses wherein the processor is configured to divide the first information output portion into a first sub-information output portion and a second sub-information output portion as an image and a first text and a second text which describe the image are extracted from compatibility information, generate a 1-1th actuation signal for actuating the first information output unit included in any one of the first sub-information output portion and the second sub-information output portion, on the basis of the image, generate a 1-2th actuation signal for actuating the first information output unit included in another one of the first sub-information output portion and the second sub-information output portion, on the basis of the first text, and generate a second actuation signal for actuating the second information output unit included in the second information output portion, on the basis of the second text (Figure 4A-4D; paragraph 42-44, 49-53).
Regarding claim 11, DAGAR discloses an information output method performed by an information output apparatus, the method comprising: generating an actuation signal for one or more of a first information output unit and a second information output unit based on compatibility information received from a compatible external device 518,618, in response to the compatible external device being connected (paragraph 42-44, 56-58, 64); transmitting the actuation signal to one or more of a first information output portion and a second information output portion (Figure 3-4D; paragraph 42-44, 49-53; portions corresponding to any area or region of 420 or 440 including various portions within those regions (e.g. 446d, 444d-3, 444d-2, 440d-1, 440d-2, etc.)); and receiving an input selecting one or more operation keys from among a plurality of operation keys to perform a function corresponding to the selected one or more operation keys, wherein the first information output portion outputs first tactile information by actuating one or more first information output units to protrude or retract, and the second information output portion is disposed at a different position from the first information output portion and outputs second tactile information by actuating one or more second information output units to protrude or retract (Figure 3, paragraph 42-44, 49-53, 56-58, 64; the height of various regions and/or portions of a haptic interface may be varied to form different functional regions and/or portions of the haptic interface).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAGAR (US 2012/0299853) in view of FRITSCH et al (US 2008/0177623).
Regarding claim 4, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, DAGAR further discloses wherein the plurality of operation keys include a first operation key and a second operation key, and the processor is configured to perform a first function corresponding to the first operation key, in response to selection of the first operation key (paragraph 42-44). However, DAGAR does not expressly disclose perform a second function corresponding to a combination of the first operation key and the second operation key, in response to selection of the second operation key together with the first operation key. In a similar field of endeavor, FRITSCH discloses perform a second function corresponding to a combination of the first operation key and the second operation key, in response to selection of the second operation key together with the first operation key (paragraph 87). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify DAGAR to include the teachings of FRITSCH, since the use of multiple keys to perform functional shortcuts is well known and conventional in the art and allows detected key inputs to be mapped to known functions of an application.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAGAR (US 2012/0299853) in view of PARK (US 2013/0097549).
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, DAGAR does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to perform a different function depending on a touch holding time of the operation key. In a similar field of endeavor, PARK discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform a different function depending on a touch holding time of the operation key (paragraph 100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify DAGAR to include the teachings of PARK, since PARK states that such a modification would allow access to functions based on time defined shortcut. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would allow additional functionality based on the teachings of PARK.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior Art fails to disclose “wherein the processor is configured to restrict some of the plurality of operation keys from being performed when information about a connection of another information output apparatus to the external device is received in a state where the information output apparatus is connected to the external device.” Although DAGAR discloses connection of various external devices, DAGAR fails to disclose restriction as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 that includes PRIOR ART not relied upon, however, provides a general understanding of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights