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 .
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-13 and 16, 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotani et al (US Application: US 2011/0164063, published: Jul. 7, 2011, filed: Mar. 8, 2011), in view of Roh et al (US Patent: 9230386, issued: Jan .6, 2016, filed: Nov. 3, 2008) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotani et al (US Application: US 2011/0164063, published: Jul. 7, 2011, filed: Mar. 8, 2011), in view of Roh et al (US Patent: 9230386, issued: Jan .6, 2016, filed: Nov. 3, 2008) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000) in view of Kit (US Patent: 7035822, issued: Apr. 25, 2006, filed: May 17, 2000).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotani et al (US Application: US 2011/0164063, published: Jul. 7, 2011, filed: Mar. 8, 2011), in view of Roh et al (US Patent: 9230386, issued: Jan .6, 2016, filed: Nov. 3, 2008) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000) in view of Brown et al (US Application: US 20030128234, published: Jul. 10, 2003, filed: Jan. 9, 2002).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘307) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11934613 (hereinafter ‘613) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013).
With regards to claim 1 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘307 is broader than claim 1 of ‘613, with the exception of: a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display (paragraph 0042: multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on a device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘613’s ability to process first and second touch inputs, such that first and second touch inputs are processed/received simultaneously as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
With regards to claim 2 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 2 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 2 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 3 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 4 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 5 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 5 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 6 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 6 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 7 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 7 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 7 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 8 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 7 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 7 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 8 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 8 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 9 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 9 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 10 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 10 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 since claim 11 of ‘307 is broader than claim 1 of ‘613, with the exception of the processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, and ‘a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display’.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, and ‘a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display’ (paragraphs 0042, 0061 and 0062: using a processing device with memory, multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on the device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘613’s ability to process first and second touch inputs, such that first and second touch inputs are processed/received simultaneously as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 2 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 12 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 13 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 13 of ‘307
With regards to claim 14 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 14 of ‘307
With regards to claim 15 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 14 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 14 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 5 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 15 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 16 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 6 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 16 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 17 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 7 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 17 of ‘307
With regards to claim 18 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 17 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 17 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 8 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 18 of ‘307
With regards to claim 19 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘613 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 9 of ‘613 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 19 of ‘307
With regards to claim 20 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘613 teaches the limitations of claim 20 of ‘307 since claim 20 of ‘307 is broader than claim 1 of ‘613, with the exception of the one or more processors and a non-transitory memory and ‘a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display’.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, and ‘a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display’ (paragraphs 0042, 0061 and 0062: using a processing device with memory, multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on the device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘613’s ability to process first and second touch inputs, such that first and second touch inputs are processed/received simultaneously as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘307) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11188218 (hereinafter ‘218) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013).
With regards to claim 1 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘218 is broader than claim 1 of ‘307 , with the exception of: a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display (paragraph 0042: multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on a device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘218’s ability to process first and second touch inputs, such that first and second touch inputs are processed/received simultaneously as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
With regards to claim 2 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 2 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 2 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 3 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 4 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 6 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 5 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 7 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 6 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 7 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 8 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 7 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 8 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 7 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 7 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 9 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 8 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 11 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 9 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 14 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 10 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘218 is broader than claim 11 of ‘307, with the exception of the processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and ‘a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display’.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, and ‘a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display’ (paragraphs 0042, 0061 and 0062: using a processing device with memory, multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on the device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘218’s ability to process first and second touch inputs, such that first and second touch inputs are processed/received simultaneously as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 2 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 12 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 13 of ‘307 it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 13 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 14 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 14 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 15 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 14 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 14 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 6 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 15 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 16 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 7 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 16 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 17 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 8 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 17 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 18 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 17 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 17 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 9 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 18 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 19 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘218 with Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 11 of ‘218 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 19 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 20 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘218 teaches the limitations of claim 20 of ‘307 since claim 1 of ‘218 is broader than claim 20 of ‘307, with the exception of the one or more processors and a non-transitory memory and ‘a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display’.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, and ‘a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display’ (paragraphs 0042, 0061 and 0062: using a processing device with memory, multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on the device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘218’s ability to process first and second touch inputs, such that first and second touch inputs are processed/received simultaneously as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘307) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10146423 (hereinafter ‘423) in view of Rodden et al (US Patent: 6473102, issued: Oct. 29, 2002, filed: May 11, 1999) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013)
With regards to claim 1 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘423 teaches the limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 except “…a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display” and “… determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display …”
However Rodden et al teaches “… determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display …” (Fig. 3, Fig. 7, column 5, lines 25-40: the window/menu is repositioned such that it is positioned within the display boundary and the reposition includes horizontal and vertical adjustment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘423’s ability to determining menu positioning, such that the positioning would have included determining a portion of the menu would be positioned outside a boundary of the display, as taught by Rodden et al. The combination would have allowed recognition of whether an interface item is sufficiently visible to the user.
However the combination does not expressly teach “…a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display”.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches “…a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display” … the touch screen display (paragraph 0042: multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on a device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘423’s ability to process first and second touch inputs, such that first and second touch inputs are processed/received simultaneously as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
With regards to claim 2 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 2 of ‘423 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 2 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 3 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 6 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 4 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 6 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 5 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 7 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 6 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 11 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 9 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 10 of ‘307 , it depends upon limitations of claim 1 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 10 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 11 of ‘307, it is rejected under similar rationale as the rejection of claim 1 of ‘307 above, with the exception that claim 1 of ‘423 does not explicitly recite the processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, and “…a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display” and “… determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display …”
However Rodden et al teaches the processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, and “… determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display …” (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7, column 5, lines 25-40: a device using a processor and memory is implemented to allow for a window/menu to be repositioned and determine whether it is repositioned within the display boundary (and the reposition includes horizontal and vertical adjustment)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘423’s ability to determining menu positioning, such that the positioning would have included determining a portion of the menu would be positioned outside a boundary of the display, as taught by Rodden et al. The combination would have allowed recognition of whether an interface item is sufficiently visible to the user.
However the combination does not expressly teach “…a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display”.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches “…a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display” … the touch screen display (paragraph 0042: multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on a device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified ‘423’s ability to process first and second touch inputs, such that first and second touch inputs are processed/received simultaneously as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
With regards to claim 12 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 2 of ‘423 teaches the remaining limitations of claim 12 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 3 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 1 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 13 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 4 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 6 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 14 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 5 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 6 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 15 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 6 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 7 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 16 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 9 of ‘307, it depends upon limitations of claim 11 of ‘307 (which was explained in the rejection of claim 11 of ‘307 above to be not patentably distinct based upon combination of ‘423 with Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al). With regards to the remaining limitations, claim 11 of ‘423 also teaches the remaining limitations of claim 19 of ‘307.
With regards to claim 20 of ‘307, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 11 of ‘307 above.
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 of the instant application (hereinafter ‘307) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10146423 (hereinafter ‘423) in view of Rodden et al (US Patent: 6473102, issued: Oct. 29, 2002, filed: May 11, 1999) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013) in view of Brown et al (US Application: US 20030128234, published: Jul. 10, 2003, filed: Jan. 9, 2002). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to claim 7 of ‘307, claim 1 of ‘307 explained that the combination of claim 1 of ‘423 , Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al teaches adjusting the position, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach adjusting a position of advertising content.
Yet Brown et al teaches teach adjusting a position of advertising content (paragraph 0071: based on interface adjustments/arrangements of content being displayed , advertising content can be relocated to a space not occupied even after the adjustments/arrangement of displayed content through allocation of a whitespace region for the advertisement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified the combination of claim 1 of ‘423, Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al’s ability to adjust menu content based on a plurality of touch inputs, such that the adjusted content being displayed would still adjust a position for an allocated white space used for displaying an advertisement, as taught by Brown et al. The combination would have implemented an improved way to ensure that designated content can be persistently displayed (Brown et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 8 of ‘307 , it is rejected under similar rationale explained for the rejection of claim 7 of ‘307 (as the remaining limitations of claim 8 of ‘307 are addressed in the prior art combination applied in claim 7 of ‘307).
With regards to claim 17 of ‘307, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 of ‘307 above.
With regards to claim 18 of ‘307 of ‘307, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 of ‘307 above.
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) 1-3, 10-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodden et al (US Patent: 6473102, issued: Oct. 29, 2002, filed: May 11, 1999) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000).
With regards to claim 1, Rodden et al teaches a method (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7, column 5, lines 25-40: a device using a processor and memory is implemented) comprising:
generating a graphical user interface for presentation to a user at an … machine [gesture input unit], wherein the graphical user interface comprises a menu presented at an initial location (column 3, lines 14-18, column 4, lines 5-12: a user can move the location of a window via pointing gesture);
receiving [gesture ] input … (column 3, lines 14-18, column 4, lines 5-12: a user can move the location of a window/menu via pointing gesture (the pointing/cursor gesture being within a dimensional screen space having horizontal and vertical dimensions));
determining a third point based on the [gesture ] … input (column 3, lines 14-18, column 4, lines 5-12 and column 5, lines 25-40: a window/menu has a rendered size with a boundary (boundary points) and any point outside of a display boundary (that could have been a result of user gesture to move window ) is identified . (The examiner respectfully notes that any point/position that is part and within the window/menu can be a third point , such as a point that is part of the window/menu boundary can be outside of the display boundary and also considered as a third point));
determining that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the … display if the position of the menu is displayed at the third point (column 5, lines 25-40: a point of the window/menu is determined and one of the points is determined to be positioned outside of the display boundary (third point outside of display boundary) ); and
adjusting, based on determining that the portion of the menu would be positioned outside of the boundary, the position of the menu to a new menu position such that no part of the menu is positioned outside the boundary of the … display (Fig. 3, Fig. 7, column 5, lines 25-40: the window/menu is repositioned such that it is positioned within the display boundary and the reposition includes horizontal and vertical adjustment).
However Rodden et al does not teach … presentation to a user at an automated banking machine having a touch screen display sensitive to multiple finger touches … ; receiving a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display.
Yet Nancke-Krogh et al teaches … presentation to a user at a … machine having a touch screen display sensitive to multiple finger touches … ; receiving a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display (paragraph 0042: multiple finger touches such as a two finger gesture to drag/move the window is implemented on a device that uses a touch screen (i.e. to move the window from first to second location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rodden et al’s ability to process/recognize gestural /selection inputs to manipulate objects within a user interface (such as windows/menus displayed on a machine based on process selection inputs associated with moving and resizing of the windows/menus), such that the type of machine is modified to support a touch screen and the type of gestural/selection inputs further include touch inputs (such as multi-touch) to manipulate the user interface objects (such as the window(s) / menu(s), as taught by Nancke-Krogh et al. The combination would have flexibly allowed an additional, efficient and intuitive mode of interaction for manipulating a user interface and through enablement of a multi-touch gesture recognition engine.
However the combination does not expressly teach the type of machine is …presentation to a user at an automated banking machine… .
Yet McNaughton teaches … for presentation to a user at an automated banking machine … (column 1, lines 41-56, column 3, lines 13-37, column 4, lines 1-18, column 5, lines 10-19: a machine’s terminal display can be adjusted by taking into account user associated context metadata such as location of user’s head (known in the art to include a face with eyes) and user’s sensed height. It is also noted that McNaughton acknowledges that the user’s location/height is influenced by other factors such as type of vehicle the user is sitting in (whether car or wheelchair)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al’s ability to adjust positioning of presented menu content on a device based on user associated context metadata, such that the device could have been a touch screen automated banking machine and the user associated context meta would have further included additional user context (location of user’s head (which as known in the art includes a face) and height of user, as taught by McNaughton. The combination would have allowed implemented a way to have made a self-service terminal (ATM) more readily accessible based upon user stature or when users are seated in different vehicles (McNaughton, column 1, lines 50-56)
With regards to claim 2. The method of claim 1, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein receiving a drag input on the touch screen display, the drag input associated with a first location on the touch screen display and a second location on the touch screen display; and in response to receiving the drag input, adjusting the new menu position from the first location to the second location , as similarly explained by Rodden et al in the rejection of claim 1 (Rodden was explained to teach a user can move the position of the menu within a space having vertical and horizontal dimensions using a drag gesture/pointer-gesture, and Rodden’s move gesture was modified with Nancke-Krogh et al’s ability to implement the move gesture using used two simultaneous finger touches that can drag), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 3. The method of claim 1, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches adjusting the new menu position to the second location comprises at least a portion of the menu being positioned outside the boundary of the touch screen display. (as similarly explained in the combination of claim 1, the combination the combination of Rodden et al teaches the menu/window position can be adjusted to a second location and a portion of the menu/window could be identified to be positioned outside the boundary of the screen. Additionally as explained, Rodden et al’s menu/window-move-gestures were modified with Nancke-Krogh et al’s ability use two finger touch screen gestures for moving a window/menu on the screen (touch screen)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The method of claim 1, Rodden et al teaches further comprising adjusting the shape of a menu option of the menu based on at least one of the first touch input, the second touch input, or the new menu position (as similarly explained and taught by Rodden et al in the rejection of claim 1, a menu can be reshaped/resized if there is a determination that it will not fit within the display), and is rejected under similar rationale..
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches a system comprising: an automated banking machine having a touch screen display sensitive to multiple finger touches; and a processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to a non-transitory memory, the processing circuit configured to: generate a graphical user interface for presentation to a user at the automated banking machine having the touch screen display, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a menu presented at an initial location; receive a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display; determine a third point based on the first touch input and the second touch input; determine that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display of the position of the menu is displayed at the third point; and adjust, based on determining that the portion of the menu would be positioned outside of the boundary, the position of the menu to a new menu position such that no part of the menu is positioned outside the boundary of the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The system of claim 11, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to adjust the position of the menu by at least one of adjusting a horizontal position of the menu or adjusting a vertical position of the menu, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The system of claim 11, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to adjust the position of the menu to the new menu position based on determining a location of a face of the user with respect to the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Rodden et al and Nancke-Krogh et al’s ability to adjust position of menu items/content based upon identified context was modified with McNaughton’s ability to include the context of a location of a head (face) of the user), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20 the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing circuit, cause the processing circuit to: generate a graphical user interface for presentation to a user at an automated banking machine having a touch screen display sensitive to multiple finger touches, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a menu presented at an initial location; receive a first touch input and a second touch input simultaneously on the touch screen display; determine a third point based on the first touch input and the second touch input; determine that a portion of the menu would be positioned outside of a boundary of the touch screen display if the position of the menu is displayed at the third point; and adjust, based on determining that the position of the menu would be positioned outside of the boundary, the position of the menu to a new menu position such that no part of the menu is positioned outside the boundary of the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodden et al (US Patent: 6473102, issued: Oct. 29, 2002, filed: May 11, 1999) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000) in view of Kit (US Patent: 7035822, issued: Apr. 25, 2006, filed: May 17, 2000).
With regards to claim 4. The method of claim 1, the combination of the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu to the new menu position is based on determining a location … of the user with respect to the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the combination of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach determining a location of a vehicle of the user …
Yet Kit teaches determining a location of a vehicle of the user … (column 4, lines 4-10, 36-43: based on vehicle detected in a relevant location, height of vehicle is also determined to make user interface adjustments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton’s ability to adjust menu content positioning based upon determining and assessing user associated metadata (such as location and height associated with the user (which could be impacted due to the user riding in/on a vehicle), such that the user associated metadata for a vehicle would include determining location and height of the vehicle, as taught by Kit. The combination would have reduced user difficulty when interacting with an ATM interface.
With regards to claim 14. The system of claim 11, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton teaches, and Kit teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu to the new menu position is based on determining a location of a vehicle of the user with respect to the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The system of claim 14, the combination of the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton teaches and Kit teaches wherein adjusting the position of the menu to the new menu position is based on determining a height of the vehicle, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodden et al (US Patent: 6473102, issued: Oct. 29, 2002, filed: May 11, 1999) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000) in view of Mcdougall (US Application: US 2015/0149953, published: May 28, 2015, filed: Nov. 25, 2013) .
With regards to claim 5. The method of claim 1, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton teaches determining the third point comprises … the first touch and the second touch inputs, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … the third point comprises determining vertical and horizontal halfway points between the first touch input and the second touch input.
Yet Mcdougall teaches … the third point comprises determining vertical and horizontal halfway points between the first touch input and the second touch input (paragraph 0062: in a window in two dimensional space (vertical and horizontal space), a window center point is determined to be halfway between positioning of two fingers in two dimensional space (the center point having horizontal and vertical position in the two dimensional space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton’s ability to determine a third point of a window/menu based upon two fingers, such that the third point is realized as a center point in two dimensional space based upon the two fingers as taught by Mcdougall et al. The combination would have allowed the user to intuitively and dynamically adjusted window positioning in response to user finger gestures.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodden et al (US Patent: 6473102, issued: Oct. 29, 2002, filed: May 11, 1999) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000) in view of Brown et al (US Application: US 20030128234, published: Jul. 10, 2003, filed: Jan. 9, 2002).
With regards to claim 7. The method of claim 1, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches further comprising adjusting a position of … content on the touch screen display based on the first and second touch input, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach adjusting a position of advertising content.
Yet Brown et al teaches teach adjusting a position of advertising content (paragraph 0071: based on interface adjustments/arrangements of content being displayed , advertising content can be relocated to a space not occupied even after the adjustments/arrangement of displayed content through allocation of a whitespace region for the advertisement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton’s ability to adjust menu content based on a plurality of touch inputs, such that the adjusted content being displayed would still adjust a position for an allocated white space used for displaying an advertisement, as taught by Brown et al. The combination would have implemented an improved way to ensure that designated content can be persistently displayed (Brown et al, paragraph 0002).
With regards to claim 8. The method of claim 7, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton teaches and Brown et al teaches wherein adjusting the position of the advertising content comprises positioning the advertising content in a portion of the touch screen display not occupied by the menu, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The system of claim 11, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton teaches and Brown et al teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to adjust a position of advertising content on the touch screen display based on the plurality of user touch inputs, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The system of claim 17, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton teaches and Brown et al teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to adjust the position of the advertising content by positioning the advertising content in a portion of the touch screen display not occupied by the menu, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodden et al (US Patent: 6473102, issued: Oct. 29, 2002, filed: May 11, 1999) in view of Nancke-Krogh et al et al (US Application: US 20140002394, published: Jan. 2, 2014, filed: Jun. 25, 2013) in view of McNaughton (US Patent: 6296079, issued: Oct. 2, 2001, filed: Apr. 18, 2000) in view Shimotani et al (US Application: US 2011/0164063, published: Jul. 7, 2011, filed: Mar. 8, 2011),
With regards to claim 6. The method of claim 1, Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton teaches further comprising: … the touch screen display … position of the menu on the touch screen display, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … determining that the user has not touched the touch screen display within a predetermined period of time; and readjusting, based on determining that the user has not touched the touch screen display within the predetermined period of time, a position of the menu on the touch screen display to a default position.
Yet Shimotani et al teaches … determining that the user has not touched the touch screen display within a predetermined period of time; and readjusting, based on determining that the user has not touched the touch screen display within the predetermined period of time, a position of the menu on the touch screen display to a default position. (Fig. 4, paragraph 0075: when the user has not touched the display within a period of time, positioning of menu item(s) is/are moved back to a default position(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al and McNaughton’s ability to allow positioning of a menu in response to user gesture input, such that the positioning of the menu could have included readjusting the position back to a default position based upon time, as taught by Shimotani et al. The combination would have automatically recalled menu positioning and reduced the need for a user to remember/recall the default position should reversion be required.
With regards to claim 9. The method of claim 1, Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton’s and Shimotani et al teaches further comprising readjusting the position of the menu to a default position after a condition occurs, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6 (Shimotani et al was explained to teach in Fig. 4, paragraph 0075: when the user has not touched the display within a period of time (an elapsed idle type condition occurring), positioning of menu item(s) are moved back to a default position(s)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The system of claim 11, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton’s and Shimotani et al teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: determine that the user has not touched the touch screen display within a predetermined period of time; and readjusting, based on determining that the user has not touched the touch screen display within the predetermined period of time, a position of the menu on the touch screen display to a default position, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 19. The system of claim 11, the combination of Rodden et al, Nancke-Krogh et al, McNaughton’s and Shimotani et al teaches where the processing circuit is further configured to readjust the position of the menu to a default position after a condition occurs, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 9, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues the amendments overcome the outstanding double patenting rejections. However this argument is not persuasive since the amendments have been explained in the updated obvious double patenting rejections above as still being insufficient to overcome the obvious double patenting rejections.
With regards to claim 1, the applicant argues Shimotani does not expressly teach a touch screen display sensitive to multiple finger touches (simultaneously), and thus claim 1 is allowable. However this argument is not persuasive since the amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the invention and necessitated a new grounds of rejection. The examiner respectfully directs the applicant’s attention to a new combination of references applied in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, for an explanation of how the limitations of claim 1 are taught and rejected.
The applicant argues claims 11 and 20 are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above, and thus the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues claims that depend directly or indirectly upon claims 1 or 11 are allowable by virtue of their dependency upon them. However this argument is not persuasive since claims 1 and 11 have been shown/explained to be rejected 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights