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 .
Claims in Consideration
Claims 7, 10, 18, are cancelled.
Claims 21-23, are new.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, 19-23, are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/12/204 & 9/17/2025 was filed before the first office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of 35 USC 103 rejection is made in view of the combination of Westerman and Drake, wherein Drake has been added to cure the deficiencies of Westerman.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 3 and 14, specifying a finger or a thumb is redundant since thumbs are fingers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejection Notes
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, and 19-22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerman et al. (US 20170344213 A1, published: 11/30/2017) and Drake et al. (US 20180059866 A1, published: 3/1/2018).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended): Westerman teaches a method at an electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving a sequence of touch inputs detected at or near a display of the electronic device, the sequence of touch inputs corresponding to a localized micromovement input (as long as the two or more fingers remain touching the sensor panel, the fingers can be moved around to effect position control on the object or cursor [Westerman, 0006]. Single point sensing is capable of only distinguishing a single touch, while multipoint sensing is capable of distinguishing multiple touches that occur at the same time [Westerman, 0039]. Referring again to FIG. 3, blocks 302-308 can be repetitively performed during a user stroke thereby generating a plurality of sequentially configured signals [Westerman, 0055]. Especially on small sensor panels and touchscreens [Westerman,0080]; Examiner's Note: any slight movement would count as a micromovement);
generating touch contact information for the localized micromovement input including a centroid displacement and a change in contact shape over the sequence of touch inputs (the tip of velocity vector can be coincident with the calculated centroid of the patch generated by the finger [Westerman 0009]. One or more additional fingers are touched down on the sensor panel while the one or more already-touching fingers remain in contact with the sensor panel [Westerman, 0067]);
determining, by a model, a speed and a direction associated with an interactive element on the display, based on the touch contact information (the speed and direction of the scrolling or dragging can be initially established by the speed and direction of the touching fingers at the time the motion continuation mode was invoked [Westerman, 0008]); and
controlling the interactive element on the display, based on the speed and the direction (as long as the two or more fingers remain touching the sensor panel, the fingers can be moved around to effect position control on the object or cursor [Westerman, 0006]).
Westerman does explicitly teach receiving a sequence of touch inputs detected at or near a display of the electronic device, the sequence of touch inputs corresponding to a localized micromovement input; generating touch contact information for the localized micromovement input including a centroid displacement and a change in contact shape over the sequence of touch inputs.
However, Drake teaches receiving a sequence of touch inputs detected at or near a display of the electronic device, the sequence of touch inputs corresponding to a localized micromovement input (the method further includes determining a temporal sequence of touches on the touch sensing surface based on the plurality of capacitive sense signals and the one or more force signals obtained from the plurality of scan cycles. For each touch of the temporal sequence of touches, a touch location is determined on the touch sensing surface based on the plurality of capacitive sense signals, and a force value associated with force applied at the touch location is determined based on the one or more force signals [Drake, 024]); generating touch contact information for the localized micromovement input including a centroid displacement and a change in contact shape over the sequence of touch inputs (for each touch of the sequence of touches, a force parameter is determined from the one or more force signals. The displacement of the touch location corresponding to the touch can be represented by the displacement of a specific force electrode 128 corresponding to a centroid location of the touch [Drake, 0294]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the virtual joystick displayed on a touchscreen invention of Westerman to include the sequence of touch inputs feature of Drake.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because keymapping is well-known in the computer art, and choosing to replace single touch with multi-touch amounts to keymapping (or gesture mapping) to various functions.
Claims 12 and 20, sharing similar elements as claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 2. (Currently Amended): The combination of Westerman and Drake, teaches the method of claim 1. Drake further teaches wherein the sequence of touch inputs corresponds to contact with the display over the sequence of touch inputs and the change in contact shape over the sequence of touch inputs depends on a surface area and an intensity of the contact with the display over the sequence of touch inputs (for each touch of the sequence of touches, a force parameter is determined from the one or more force signals. The displacement of the touch location corresponding to the touch can be represented by the displacement of a specific force electrode 128 corresponding to a centroid location of the touch [Drake, 0294]).
Claim 13, sharing similar elements as claim 2, is likewise rejected.
Claim 3. (Currently Amended): The combination of Westerman and Drake, teaches the method of claim 2. Westerman further teaches wherein the sequence of touch inputs correspond to contact by a finger or a thumb of a user in contact with the display and wherein the model determines at least one of the speed or the direction associated with the interactive element based on variation of the surface area or the intensity over the sequence of touch inputs (The speed and direction of the scrolling or dragging can be initially established by the speed and direction of the touching fingers at the time the motion continuation mode was invoked [Westerman, 0008]).
Claim 14, sharing similar elements as claim 3, is likewise rejected.
Claim 4: The combination of Westerman and Drake, teaches the method of claim 1. Westerman further teaches further comprising: prior to receiving the touch input: activating a virtual joystick on the display of the electronic device, wherein a user interface (UI) controller of the electronic device is configured to control the interactive element in response to a user interaction with the virtual joystick (when the motion continuation mode is invoked, a virtual control ring or joystick can be generated to provide enhanced motion continuation capabilities. The virtual control ring can be used as a joystick to navigate within a document, photo, web page, e-mail list, address book, calendar, game, and the like, especially on small touchscreens [Westerman, 0009]).
Claim 15, sharing similar elements as claim 4, is likewise rejected.
Claim 6. (Currently Amended): The combination of Westerman and Drake, teaches the method of claim 1. Westerman further teaches wherein generating the touch contact information comprises: receiving raw capacitive signal associated with the micromovement input; generating a sequence of high-resolution contact image based on the raw capacitive signal; and determining the change in contact shape and the centroid displacement based on the high-resolution contact images (the touch sensing device can be based on sensing technologies including but not limited to capacitive sensing, resistive sensing, surface acoustic wave sensing, pressure sensing, optical sensing, and/or the like. Furthermore, the touch sensing means can be based on single point sensing or multipoint sensing [Westerman, 0039]).
Claim 17, sharing similar elements as claim 6, is likewise rejected.
Claim 8: The combination of Westerman and Drake, teaches the method of claim 1. Westerman further teaches wherein controlling the interactive element on the display comprises: providing the speed and the direction to a user interface (UI) controller of the electronic device for controlling the interactive element on the display (the velocity vector within the virtual control ring can act as a joystick, with the velocity and direction of the motion continuation being controllable by a finger as it moves within the control ring [Westerman, 0076]).
Claim 19, sharing similar elements as claim 8, is likewise rejected.
Claim 9. (Currently Amended): The combination of Westerman and Drake, teaches the method of claim 8. Westerman further teaches wherein the interactive element is a cursor or a menu (the fingers can be placed down anywhere on a sensor panel, and a cursor can appear near or under the fingers [Westerman, 0006]).
Claim 11: The combination of Westerman and Drake, teaches the method of claim 1. Westerman further teaches wherein the display is a capacitive touch-sensitive display (the touch sensing device can be based on sensing technologies including but not limited to capacitive sensing, resistive sensing, surface acoustic wave sensing, pressure sensing, optical sensing, and/or the like [Westerman, 0039]).
Claim(s) 5 and 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerman et al. (US 20170344213 A1, published: 11/30/2017) and Drake et al. (US 20180059866 A1, published: 3/1/2018), and in further view of Marsden (US 20210405870 A1, published: 12/30/2021).
Claim 5. (Currently Amended): The combination of Westerman and Drake, teaches the method of claim 4. The combination of Westerman and Drake, does not teach wherein the user interaction with the virtual joystick corresponds to the micromovement input caused by a user’s finger in contact with the display, the micromovement input associated with fine-grain movements of the user's finger representing at least one of: a rolling micromovement; a rocking micromovement; or a pivoting micromovement.
However Marsden teaches wherein the user interaction with the virtual joystick corresponds to the micromovement input caused by a user’s finger in contact with the display, the micromovement input associated with fine-grain movements of the user's finger representing at least one of: a rolling micromovement; a rocking micromovement; or a pivoting micromovement (allowing a user to roll a single finger over the virtual keyboard [Westerman, 0335]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the virtual joystick displayed on a touchscreen invention of the combination of Westerman and Drake, to include the micromovement feature of Marsden.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to deliver more entertaining animated gestures to keep user's engaged with an otherwise generic touchscreen interface.
Claim 16, sharing similar elements as claim 5, is likewise rejected.
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 SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights