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 . This action is made final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 16 are independent claims.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ADAPTING BUTTON SIZE IN VIRTUAL SCENE BASED ON TOUCH OPERATION.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 14-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11995311 B2, in view of Wheeler et al. (US 2020/0387297 A1). The claims of the instant application are rendered obvious by the claims of the patent in view of Wheeler.
The claims of the instant application are rejected under double patenting by the following relationship with claims of patent no. 11995311 B2:
18/631,357
US 11995311 B2
(n/m denotes n is dependent of m)
1, 15
1
5, 7, 14
9/8/1
6
12/1
16
15
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, the similarities between independent claim 1 of the instant application and of patent no. US 11784540 B2 are evidenced below:
18/631,357
US 11995311 B2
1. An adaptive display method for a virtual scene, performed by an electronic device with a touchscreen, the method comprising:
displaying the virtual scene on the touchscreen and at least one button associated with at least one interaction function in the virtual scene, wherein the at least one button is displayed at a first size;
displaying a dedicated receiving area that superimposes over the virtual scene on the touchscreen for receipt of at least one touch operation;
receiving the at least one touch operation on the receiving area;
in response to the at least one touch operation on the receiving area, determining a maximum touch area of at least one detected touch area corresponding to the at least one touch operation; and
adapting display of the at least one button in the virtual scene from the first size to a second size according to the maximum touch area.
1. An adaptive display method for a virtual scene, performed by an electronic device with a touchscreen, the method comprising:
displaying the virtual scene on the touchscreen and at least one second button associated with at least one interaction function in the virtual scene, wherein the at least one second button is displayed at a first size;
displaying a set of first buttons on the touchscreen, wherein the set of first buttons is not interactive with the virtual scene and comprises at least two subsets of buttons, and wherein each subset of the at least two subsets of buttons comprises a plurality of buttons having:
a same size as each other button within a respective subset of the at least two subsets of buttons, and
a different size from all other buttons within other subsets of the at least two subsets of buttons;
obtaining, in response to a plurality of touch operations on the set of first buttons by a user of the electronic device, at least one touch parameter realized from the plurality of touch operations on the set of first buttons, the at least one touch parameter comprising at least one of a minimum touch area or a maximum touch area, wherein each of the at least two subsets of buttons receives at least one of the plurality of touch operations; and
adapting display of the at least one second button from the first size to a second size, wherein the second size is determined based on the obtained at least one touch parameter and the second size is different from the first size.
Claim 1 of the patent does not have a corresponding recitation for displaying a dedicated receiving area that superimposes over the virtual scene. However, Wheeler teaches displaying a dedicated receiving area that superimposes over the virtual scene on the touchscreen for receipt of at least one touch operation (FIG. 1, [0045-0046], and [0051-0052], FIG. 4A and [0085]: As described in [0045], “Content engine 126 may be configured to display UI layout 120 alone or with displayed content 122 (e.g., as an integral part of displayed content 122 or as a graphical overlay over displayed content 122)”. As supported in [0046] and [0051-0052], displayed content 122 may be, for example, a video game. A UI layout 120 may be a graphical overlay of touch screen controls that is superimposed over the displayed video game; FIGS. 8-9 and [0110-0123]: For example, see in FIG. 9 how “a user selected first group rotation and scale control 814 and dragged the held position away from the center of editable first control group 808 and counterclockwise (e.g., down and to the right) to position 914, which had the effect of increasing the scale of editable first control group 808 (e.g., increasing active touch area of sockets/controls and/or spacing between controls)”. Thus, a dedicated receiving area may include at least first group rotation and scale control 814, which is part of the displayed UI layout 120 as illustrated in FIG. 4A, that superimposes over the virtual scene). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 1 of the patent by incorporating the teachings of Wheeler so as to include displaying a dedicated receiving area that superimposes over the virtual scene. Doing so would allow the user to maximize display of virtual content, thereby receiving more information, while also allowing the user to more precisely gauge the efficacy of the UI layout, including the buttons, in relation to the virtual scene due to the dedicated receiving area’s superimposition over the virtual scene so that the user can more efficiently adjust the buttons for future interaction with the virtual scene. In this way, the user may ensure that buttons do not impede critical areas of the virtual scene and are sized appropriately for easy user input. Having a dedicated receiving area superimposed over the virtual scene would also save screen real estate and may improve accuracy and dexterity for interaction with the virtual scene given the closer proximity.
The remaining differences as underlined constitute minor changes in syntax and format in which the claim of patent no. 11995311 B2 teaches the instant application given the more specific corresponding recitations. Therefore, the instant claims are rendered obvious by the claims of the patent in view of Wheeler.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell (US 2013/0120278 A1), in view of Wheeler et al. (US 2020/0387297 A1), in view of Tomoda (US 2012/0068948 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cantrell teaches an adaptive display method for a virtual scene (FIG. 12, [0024-0025], [0048], and [0051]: electronic device 1200 includes a processor 1210 coupled to touchscreen 103; FIGS. 10a-c and [0037]: an example of a virtual scene corresponds to playing music), performed by an electronic device with a touchscreen, the method comprising:
displaying the virtual scene on the touchscreen and at least one button associated with at least one interaction function in the virtual scene, wherein the at least one button is displayed at a first size (FIG. 10a, [0031], and [0037]: for example, at least one first button/input option corresponding to “Bass Drum” and the virtual scene are displayed on the touchscreen 103. Note that the first button may be any of the input options 105);
displaying a dedicated receiving area… on the touchscreen for receipt of at least one touch operation (FIG. 10a, [0031], and [0037]: receipt of at least one touch operation results in contact area 201j overlapping with multiple input options, as similarly described in FIG. 3 and [0027]. Thus, a displayed receiving area includes an area corresponding to the contact area 201j, which overlaps multiple input options. This contact area is a touch parameter obtained in response to at least one touch operation on the first button, which may be “Bass Drum”);
receiving the at least one touch operation on the receiving area (FIG. 10a, [0031], and [0037]: receipt of at least one touch operation on the receiving area results in contact area 201j overlapping with multiple input options, as similarly described in FIG. 3 and [0027]);
in response to the at least one touch operation on the receiving area, determining a maximum touch area of at least one detected touch area corresponding to the at least one touch operation (FIG. 10a, [0031], and [0037]: a touch area/contact area 201j overlapping with multiple input options is determined in response to the at least one touch operation, as similarly described in FIG. 3 and [0027]); and
adapting display of the at least one button in the virtual scene from the first size to a second size according to the maximum touch area (FIGS. 10a and 10c, [0031], and [0037]: the at least one button, like “Bass Drum”, is adapted from a first size, as seen in FIG. 10a, to a second size, as seen in FIG. 10c, according to the at touch area/contact area).
Cantrell does not explicitly teach displaying a dedicated receiving area that superimposes over the virtual scene.
Wheeler teaches displaying a dedicated receiving area that superimposes over the virtual scene on the touchscreen for receipt of at least one touch operation (FIG. 1, [0045-0046], and [0051-0052], FIG. 4A and [0085]: As described in [0045], “Content engine 126 may be configured to display UI layout 120 alone or with displayed content 122 (e.g., as an integral part of displayed content 122 or as a graphical overlay over displayed content 122)”. As supported in [0046] and [0051-0052], displayed content 122 may be, for example, a video game. A UI layout 120 may be a graphical overlay of touch screen controls that is superimposed over the displayed video game; FIGS. 8-9 and [0110-0123]: For example, see in FIG. 9 how “a user selected first group rotation and scale control 814 and dragged the held position away from the center of editable first control group 808 and counterclockwise (e.g., down and to the right) to position 914, which had the effect of increasing the scale of editable first control group 808 (e.g., increasing active touch area of sockets/controls and/or spacing between controls)”. Thus, a dedicated receiving area may include at least first group rotation and scale control 814, which is part of the displayed UI layout 120 as illustrated in FIG. 4A, that superimposes over the virtual scene).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell by incorporating the teachings of Wheeler so as to include displaying a dedicated receiving area that superimposes over the virtual scene. Doing so would allow the user to maximize display of virtual content, thereby receiving more information, while also allowing the user to more precisely gauge the efficacy of the UI layout, including the buttons, in relation to the virtual scene due to the dedicated receiving area’s superimposition over the virtual scene so that the user can more efficiently adjust the buttons for future interaction with the virtual scene. In this way, the user may ensure that buttons do not impede critical areas of the virtual scene and are sized appropriately for easy user input. Having a dedicated receiving area superimposed over the virtual scene would also save screen real estate and may improve accuracy and dexterity for interaction with the virtual scene given the closer proximity.
Cantrell in view of Wheeler does not explicitly teach the touch area being a maximum touch area.
Tomoda teaches in response to the at least one touch operation on the receiving area, determining a maximum touch area of at least one detected touch area corresponding to the at least one touch operation (FIGS. 1-2, [0042], [0045], and [0058-0060]: as seen in FIG. 2, a maximum touch area, corresponding to the touch area for a thumb of user’s left hand, is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell in view of Wheeler and incorporate the teachings of Tomoda and have the touch area be a maximum touch area. Doing so would allow the device to display buttons in accordance with the maximum touch area optimally and specifically sized for the user. This would help increase accuracy and precision of user inputs by reducing the likelihood of unintended user inputs by accounting for the maximum touch area and accordingly, for example, ensure that the at least one button is not displayed too small and/or close to each other. Specifically, a maximum touch area can account for what is typically a user’s largest digit, their thumb, by detecting the thumb’s contact with the touch screen to determine the thumb’s touch area, which includes the detected distance through which the thumb comes into contact with the screen. As such, the user’s thumb has a touch area that may be defined as a circle geometrically corresponding to the thumb’s contact size, the touch area dictating the size at which at least one button is displayed for more effective control.
Regarding claim 2, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 1. Tomoda further teaches wherein the maximum touch area is determined based on at least one maximum distance of the at least one detected touch area (FIGS. 1-2, [0042], [0045], and [0058-0060]: as seen in FIG. 2, a maximum touch area, corresponding to the touch area for a thumb of user’s left hand, has a maximum distance indicated by the detected touch area’s diameter; See rationale provided for claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 2. Tomoda further teaches wherein each of the at least one maximum distance comprises a maximum distance between a respective center of a respective detected touch area and a respective edge of the respective detected touch area (FIGS. 1-2, [0042], [0045], and [0058-0060]: as seen in FIG. 2, a maximum touch area, corresponding to the touch area for a thumb of user’s left hand, has a maximum distance indicated by the detected touch area’s diameter. The diameter, itself, comprises a radius, or a maximum distance between a respective center of a respective detected touch area and a respective edge of the respective detected touch area; See rationale provided for claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 1. Tomoda further teaches wherein the maximum touch area comprises a maximum area of at least one circle derived from the at least one detected touch area (FIGS. 1-2, [0042], [0045], and [0058-0060]: as seen in FIG. 2, a maximum touch area, corresponding to the touch area for a thumb of user’s left hand, has a maximum distance indicated by the detected touch area’s diameter. As evident by the illustrated thumb’s contact size in FIG. 2, the touch area comprises a maximum area of at least one circle derived from the at least one detected touch area; See rationale provided for claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 1. Tomoda further teaches wherein the maximum touch area comprises a first maximum touch area, wherein the at least one least one touch operation comprises a plurality of touch operations and the at least one detected touch area comprises a plurality of detected touch areas (FIGS. 1-2, [0042], [0045], and [0058-0060]: as seen in FIG. 2, a maximum touch area comprises a first maximum touch area, corresponding to the touch area for a thumb of user’s left hand. The at least one touch operation comprises a plurality of touch operations, including a thumb touch operation and a pen touch operation. The at least one detected touch area comprises a plurality of detected touch areas), the method further comprising:
determining a plurality of second maximum touch areas, each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of detected touch areas (FIGS. 1-2, [0042], [0045], and [0058-0060]: a plurality of second maximum touch areas include a maximum touch area corresponding to a thumb of a user’s left hand and a maximum touch area corresponding to a pen touch operation),
wherein the first maximum touch area is a maximum value among the plurality of second maximum touch areas (FIGS. 1-2, [0042], [0045], and [0058-0060]: the first maximum touch area, corresponding to the touch area of a thumb of a user’s left hand, is a maximum value as evidence by its contact size among the plurality of second maximum touch areas for the thumb and the touch pen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda by incorporating the further teachings of Tomoda so as to include wherein the maximum touch area comprises a first maximum touch area, wherein the at least one least one touch operation comprises a plurality of touch operations and the at least one detected touch area comprises a plurality of detected touch areas, the method further comprising: determining a plurality of second maximum touch areas, each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of detected touch areas, wherein the first maximum touch area is a maximum value among the plurality of second maximum touch areas. Doing so would offer more precise sizing of the at least one button by accounting for multiple touch areas. By determining a certain maximum touch area is a maximum value, or larger, than other touch area(s), at least one button of the at least one button may have its size adjusted to compensate for the maximum touch area as opposed to having its size inadequately adjusted based on a smaller detected touch area. This would further help increase accuracy and precision of user inputs by reducing the likelihood of unintended user inputs by accounting for the maximum touch area and accordingly, for example, ensure that the at least one button is not displayed too small and/or close to each other.
Regarding claim 7, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 1. Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda further teaches wherein the at least one detected touch area comprises a detected fingerprint that filled at least a portion of the receiving area (Cantrell, FIG. 10a, [0031], and [0037]: receipt of at least one touch operation, which comprises a fingerprint filling at least a portion of the receiving area, results in contact area 201j overlapping with multiple input options, as similarly described in FIG. 3 and [0027]; For supplemental details regarding a detected fingerprint see FIG. 11 and [0040-0042]) (Tomoda, supplemental mapping, FIGS. 1-2, [0042], [0045], and [0058-0060]: thumb fingerprint fills at least a portion of the receiving area).
Regarding claim 9, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 7. Cantrell futher teaches wherein determining the maximum touch area comprises determining a number of pixels derived from the detected fingerprint (FIG. 11 and [0040]: “In some embodiments, device 100 may detect biometric measurements of contact area 201 (e.g., size/shape). For example, contact area 201 may include an approximate width times an approximate height. In some embodiments, the width and height may be measured in pixels (the size of the pixels may depend on the screen resolution of touchscreen 103).”).
Regarding claim 14, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 1. Cantrell further teaches wherein the at least one button comprises at least one second button, the receiving area comprises at least one first button, and the at least one detected touch area comprises at least one fingerprint (FIG. 10a, [0031], and [0037]: receipt of at least one touch operation, which comprises a fingerprint filling at least a portion of the receiving area, results in contact area 201j overlapping with multiple input options, as similarly described in FIG. 3 and [0027]. The at least one button comprises at least one second button, like “Cymbal”. The receiving area comprises at least one first button, such as “Bass Drum”, and the at least one detected touch area comprises at least one fingerprint; For supplemental details regarding a detected fingerprint see FIG. 11 and [0040-0042]).
Regarding claims 16-18 and 20, the claims recite an apparatus (Cantrell, apparatus/electronic device 1200 of FIG. 12, [0024], and [0048-0051]) comprising: a memory storing a plurality of instructions; and a processor configured to execute the plurality of instructions (Cantrell, FIG. 12 and [0048-0050]: memory 1220 stores program instructions 1222 executed by processor 1210), and upon execution of the plurality of instructions, is configured to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Claims 6, 8, 10-12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell (US 2013/0120278 A1), in view of Wheeler et al. (US 2020/0387297 A1), in view of Tomoda (US 2012/0068948 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0114047 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 1. Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the at least one touch operation, determining that each of the at least one detected touch area is unchanged during a respective one of the at least one touch operation for at least a threshold duration, wherein the maximum touch area is dependent on each of the at least one detected touch area being unchanged for at least the threshold duration.
Kim teaches in response to receiving the at least one touch operation, determining that each of the at least one detected touch area is unchanged during a respective one of the at least one touch operation for at least a threshold duration,
wherein the maximum touch area is dependent on each of the at least one detected touch area being unchanged for at least the threshold duration (FIG. 2(a) and [0052-0062]: in response to the at least one touch operation, each of the at least one detected touch area is unchanged during the respective touch operation for at least a threshold duration) (FIG. 12 and [0147-0150]: for example, the at least one detected touch area, as seen in section (b) of FIG. 12, is unchanged for at least a threshold duration, allowing for fingerprint acquisition of the maximum touch area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda by incorporating the teachings of Kim so as to include in response to receiving the at least one touch operation, determining that each of the at least one detected touch area is unchanged during a respective one of the at least one touch operation for at least a threshold duration, wherein the maximum touch area is dependent on each of the at least one detected touch area being unchanged for at least the threshold duration. Doing so would help ensure that a reasonable touch area is acquired from the user’s touch input since too weak of an input may result in detection of too small of a touch area and too strong of an input may result in detection of too big of a touch area. Instead, the touch area is held unchanged at a suitable strength for a threshold duration to precisely acquire the most applicable touch area for the user. A threshold duration also prevents the likelihood of processing rogue user touch inputs, which in turn helps prevent inaccurate detections of touch areas.
Regarding claim 8, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 7. Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda does not explicitly teach graphically highlighting the detected fingerprint in the receiving area.
Kim teaches graphically highlighting the detected fingerprint in the receiving area (FIGS. 9A-B and [0136-0140]: the detected fingerprint is graphically highlighted in the receiving area/fingerprint sensing region 920; For additional examples, see FIGS. 7E-F and [0126-0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda by incorporating the teachings of Kim so as to include graphically highlighting the detected fingerprint in the receiving area. Doing so would allow the user to “recognize the region where the fingerprint is actually recognized on the fingerprint sensing region 920” (Kim, [0140]). In this way, the user is assured if they performed the touch input as intended or would need to redo the touch input. Graphical highlighting would alert the user of a rogue touch input that does not accurately reflect the user’s typical touch input pattern.
Regarding claim 10, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 7. Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda does not explicitly teach displaying a prompt simultaneously with displaying the receiving area, the prompt prompting a user to cover the receiving area as much as possible with a finger.
Kim teaches displaying a prompt simultaneously with displaying the receiving area, the prompt prompting a user to cover the receiving area as much as possible with a finger (FIGS. 7A-F and [0119-0128]: a prompt, including text information 772 and/or visual feedback 773, is displayed simultaneously with the receiving area/fingerprint sensing region 720, the prompt prompting a user to cover the receiving area s much as possible with a finger by laying the finger flat on the fingerprint sensing region 720).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda by incorporating the teachings of Kim so as to include displaying a prompt simultaneously with displaying the receiving area, the prompt prompting a user to cover the receiving area as much as possible with a finger. Doing so would assist the user to more reliably provide fingerprint information and, accordingly, allow the device to more effectively and accurately capture fingerprint information.
Regarding claim 11, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 1. Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda does not explicitly teach in response to determining the maximum touch area, displaying a confirming interface with an icon corresponding to the maximum touch area.
Kim teaches in response to determining the maximum touch area, displaying a confirming interface with an icon corresponding to the maximum touch area (FIGS. 7E-F and [0126-0128], FIGS. 9A-B and [0136-0140]: for example, a confirming interface is seen in FIG. 7F in which an icon/graphic object 766 corresponding to the touch area is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda by incorporating the teachings of Kim so as to include in response to determining the maximum touch area, displaying a confirming interface with an icon corresponding to the maximum touch area. Doing so would allow the user to “recognize the region where the fingerprint is actually recognized on the fingerprint sensing region 920” (Kim, [0140]). In this way, the user is assured if they performed the touch input as intended or would need to redo the touch input. Graphical highlighting would alert the user of a rogue touch input that does not accurately reflect the user’s typical touch input pattern.
Regarding claim 12, Cantrell in view of Wheeler in view of Tomoda in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 11. Kim further teaches wherein the icon comprises a fingerprint (FIGS. 7E-F and [0126-0128], FIGS. 9A-B and [0136-0140]; See rationale provided for claim 11).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 6 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell (US 2013/0120278 A1), in view of Wheeler et al. (US 2020/0387297 A1), in view of Tomoda (US 2012/0068948 A1), in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0114047 A1), in view of Makuch et al. (US 9937415 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda in view of Kim teaches the method according to claim 11. Cantrell in view of Wheeler in view of Tomoda in view of Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the confirming interface is separate from the virtual scene, the method further comprising: switching display from the confirming interface to the virtual scene in response to receiving a confirming input on the confirming interface.
Makuch teaches wherein the confirming interface is separate from the virtual scene, the method further comprising: switching display from the confirming interface to the virtual scene in response to receiving a confirming input on the confirming interface (FIG. 14 and Col. 27, line 33 to Col. 28, line 4: for example, a second user interface 1404 displays a confirming interface labeled “GAME PAUSED” which is switched to the virtual scene in response to receiving a confirming input via resume game control 1420 on the confirming interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell in view of Wheeler in view of Tomoda in view of Kim by incorporating the teachings of Makuch so as to include wherein the confirming interface is separate from the virtual scene, the method further comprising: switching display from the confirming interface to the virtual scene in response to receiving a confirming input on the confirming interface. Doing so would offer a more distinct separation between the confirming interface and the virtual scene to prevent unintended inputs on either the confirming interface or the virtual scene (e.g., the user is less likely to confuse which controls belong to which interface). Furthermore, a confirming input grants the user the ability to more quickly access the virtual scene upon confirmation that configurations shown on the confirming interface are satisfactory. In this way, the user does not have to perform manual navigation to access the virtual scene from the confirming interface.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell (US 2013/0120278 A1), in view of Wheeler et al. (US 2020/0387297 A1), in view of Tomoda (US 2012/0068948 A1), in view of Keam et al. (US 2016/0313912 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda teaches the method according to claim 1. Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving area is not interactive with the virtual scene.
Keam teaches wherein the receiving area is not interactive with the virtual scene (FIG. 12 and [0117]: first buttons are displayed in a receiving area as seen in screen 1210. This area is independent of the virtual scene of the game, which is paused. The buttons have different sizes and are not associated with at least one interaction function in the virtual scene since the virtual scene is paused and the buttons are being edited).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cantrell in view of Wheeler and in view of Tomoda and incorporate the teachings of Keam and have wherein the receiving area is not interactive with the virtual scene. Doing so would prevent unintended input for interacting with the virtual scene since the receiving area represents a dedicated region for the user to configure or edit buttons, which ultimately may interact with the virtual scene, before actual interaction of the virtual scene. In this way, unintended inputs affecting the virtual scene may be prevented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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 D VU can be reached on (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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights