DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has amended the claim to include the following.
wherein the limit the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without executing a function preassigned to the one of the plurality of specific areas, and
wherein the limit the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing a position or a size of the one of the plurality of the specific areas.
The Examiner interpretation of the claims is as follows. An invalid area is an area that is no longer suitable for the intended operation (i.e., no longer valid).
Consider the instant claims. The device recognizes a user’s touch on a specified surface area. The touch operation is registered as valid. The surface area may include and measurable surface area of the phone (e.g., the entire left and ride side). Subsequently, the user can invalidate the specific area being touched by the user (e.g., the upper left side and the upper right side). The result of the operation inherently reduces the size (i.e., half of the left and right side) contradicting limitation b.) above. Also, note the position of the specific area has changed. The initial position being the entire left and ride side and the subsequent position being only half of the left and right side. The above example would effectuate the equivalent of a position change. The touch position of the originally assigned touch area is no longer valid for the intended operation that would result based on registering of a touch. This would contradict the argument regarding b.) above which include changing the position. The device recognizes a user’s touch on a specified surface area. The touch operation is registered as valid or enabled. Once the particular function is disabled for its intended purpose the touch area would be further defined as invalid because the touch area is no longer valid for the intended operation.
Therefore, as best understood by Examiner the prior art would still read on the claim language. The invention essential requirement is that a finite space on a device is invalid any changes to the finite space results in disabling (i.e., the area no longer serves the disabled function hence an invalid area). Furthermore, reducing a finite physical space is by definition a change in size or shape. Gillespie teaches multiple manners of invalidating a touch area which does not limit the invalidation to the claimed amendments.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the combination, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In reKeller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In reSneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained as proper.
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 (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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 13-19, 21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 20100302212 A1, hereinafter, ‘Weber’ in view of Gillespie et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2005/0024341 A1, hereinafter, ‘Gillespie.
Consider claim 1 and as applied to claims 5 and 6 , Weber teaches a mobile terminal (e.g., see figure 1 )comprising: a display comprising a touch panel(e.g., see figure 1 ); and a controller comprising: at least one processor(e.g., see figure 1 -computing device ); and a computer-readable storage medium storing a program (see mobile computing device and figure 1-2 and 0024), wherein the controller is configured to: specify one of a plurality of identification information in response to a first touch operation on the touch panel (e.g., this is met based on user identification profile based on a user identifier that identifies a touch profile – 0012, 0018-0019, and 0025);after the one of the plurality of identification information is specified, specify information related to a plurality of specific areas related to the specified one of the plurality of identification information(e.g., this is met based on user identification profile based on a user identifier that identifies a touch profile – 0012, 0018-0019, and 0025- see also touch maps and touch attributes that refines the contours and boundaries corresponding to the touch map); and after the information related to the plurality of specific areas is specified, and in response to a second touch operation being on one of the specific areas on the touch panel included in the plurality of specific areas, limit an input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas, wherein each of the plurality of specific areas is located on different portions of the touch panel from each other(e.g., 0012, 0015 -0016, 0018-0019, and 0025- see also touch maps and touch attributes that refines the contours and boundaries corresponding to the touch map- 0031-0038 limits touch areas and errors).
Weber does not specifically teach wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without executing a function pre- assigned to the one of the plurality of specific areas teach; wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing a position or a size of the one of the plurality of the specific areas.
The Examiner was unable to find in the written specification information regarding the noted function. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as a best understood.
Gillespie teaches in 0126 “Driver 1620 may support a software control panel to allow the user to customize the operation of the touch screen. This control panel can include controls to choose, enable, disable, and rearrange the various icons on the default iconic screen. This control panel can also include controls to choose which touch screen activation mechanism(s) to use, and which auxiliary and pop-up images to allow access to the screen.” (i.e., the ability to limit various touch mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without executing a function pre- assigned to the one of the plurality of specific areas(i.e., reduce the valid surface area by reducing the number of valid places that were previously registering a touch ); wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing a position or a size of the one of the plurality of the specific areas(i.e., invalidating a specific touch operation in a specific place) for the purpose of enhancing touch screen operations().
Consider claims 3 and 7, Weber teaches wherein each of the plurality of specific areas do not overlap with each other (i.e., the touch map limits touch as noted with respect to figures 3a- 4).
Consider claims 4 and 8, Weber teaches wherein the controller is configured to: limit the input operation prevent the display from displaying other applications that are different from an application currently displayed on the display (i.e., limits mistypes and related touch errors and thus prevent opening and displaying -0031-0033).
Consider claim 13, Weber teaches wherein the controller is configured to: after a third touch operation on the touch panel, display information indicating a setting mode related to the plurality of specific areas, wherein the displayed information includes information displayed based on enabling the setting mode (e.g., this is met based on the settings noted in 0022-0024 and 0036).
Consider claim 14, Weber teaches wherein the controller is configured to: after a third touch operation on the touch panel, display information based on enabling a setting mode related to the plurality of specific areas (e.g., this is met based on the settings noted in 0022-0024 and 0036 and figure 2).
Consider claim 15, Weber teaches wherein the controller is configured to: after a third touch operation on the touch panel, display information based on enabling a setting mode and information indicating the setting mode related to the plurality of specific areas is enabled(e.g., this is met based on the settings noted in 0022-0024 and 0036 and figure 2).
Consider claim 16, Weber teaches wherein the controller is configured to: after a third touch operation on the touch panel, display information related to a setting mode, wherein the displayed information includes first information or second information(e.g., this is met based on the settings noted in 0022-0024 and 0036 and figure 2), the first information displayed before starting the setting mode is enabled and the second information displayed after starting the setting mode is enabled(e.g., this is met based on the settings noted in 0022-0024 and 0036 and figure 2).
Consider Claim 17, Weber does not specifically teach wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas comprises limiting execution of the application related to the one of the plurality of specific areas.
The Examiner was unable to find in the written specific information regarding the noted function. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as a best understood.
Gillespie teaches in 0126 “Driver 1620 may support a software control panel to allow the user to customize the operation of the touch screen. This control panel can include controls to choose, enable, disable, and rearrange the various icons on the default iconic screen. This control panel can also include controls to choose which touch screen activation mechanism(s) to use, and which auxiliary and pop-up images to allow access to the screen.” (i.e., the ability to limit various touch mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas comprises limiting execution of the application related to the one of the plurality of specific areas for the purpose of enhancing touch screen operations.
Consider Claim 18, Weber does not specifically wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed by preventing execution of an application corresponding to the one of the plurality of specific areas.
The Examiner was unable to find in the written specification information regarding the noted function. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as a best understood limiting operation. Gillespie teaches in 0126 “Driver 1620 may support a software control panel to allow the user to customize the operation of the touch screen. This control panel can include controls to choose, enable, disable, and rearrange the various icons on the default iconic screen. This control panel can also include controls to choose which touch screen activation mechanism(s) to use, and which auxiliary and pop-up images to allow access to the screen.” (i.e., the ability to limit various touch mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed by preventing execution of an application corresponding to the one of the plurality of specific areas for the purpose of enhancing touch screen operations.
Consider Claim 19, Weber does not specifically teach wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas comprises limiting execution of the application corresponding to the one of the plurality of specific areas.
The Examiner was unable to find in the written specification information regarding the noted function. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as a best understood limiting operation.
Gillespie teaches in 0126 “Driver 1620 may support a software control panel to allow the user to customize the operation of the touch screen. This control panel can include controls to choose, enable, disable, and rearrange the various icons on the default iconic screen. This control panel can also include controls to choose which touch screen activation mechanism(s) to use, and which auxiliary and pop-up images to allow access to the screen.” (i.e., the ability to limit various touch mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas comprises limiting execution of the application related to the one of the plurality of specific areas for the purpose of enhancing touch screen operations.
Consider Claim 21, Weber does not specifically teach wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed by not handling the input operation.
The Examiner was unable to find in the written specification information regarding the noted function. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as a best understood limiting operation.
Gillespie teaches in 0126 “Driver 1620 may support a software control panel to allow the user to customize the operation of the touch screen. This control panel can include controls to choose, enable, disable, and rearrange the various icons on the default iconic screen. This control panel can also include controls to choose which touch screen activation mechanism(s) to use, and which auxiliary and pop-up images to allow access to the screen.” (i.e., the ability to limit various touch mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed by not handling the input operation for the purpose of enhancing touch screen operations.
Consider Claim 23, Weber does not specifically teach wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing positions or sizes of interface elements displayed on the touch panel.
The Examiner was unable to find in the written specification information regarding the noted function. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as a best understood limiting operation. Gillespie teaches in 0126 “Driver 1620 may support a software control panel to allow the user to customize the operation of the touch screen. This control panel can include controls to choose, enable, disable, and rearrange the various icons on the default iconic screen. This control panel can also include controls to choose which touch screen activation mechanism(s) to use, and which auxiliary and pop-up images to allow access to the screen.” (i.e., the ability to limit various touch mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing positions or sizes of interface elements displayed on the touch panel for the purpose of enhancing touch screen operations.
Consider Claim 24, Weber does not specifically teach wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing sizes of interface elements and without aligning the interface elements displayed on the touch panel.
The Examiner was unable to find in the written specification information regarding the noted function. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as a best understood limiting operation. Gillespie teaches in 0126 “Driver 1620 may support a software control panel to allow the user to customize the operation of the touch screen. This control panel can include controls to choose, enable, disable, and rearrange the various icons on the default iconic screen. This control panel can also include controls to choose which touch screen activation mechanism(s) to use, and which auxiliary and pop-up images to allow access to the screen.” (i.e., the ability to limit various touch mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing sizes of interface elements and without aligning the interface elements displayed on the touch panel for the purpose of enhancing touch screen operations.
Consider Claim 25, Weber does not specifically teach wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing sizes or alignment of interface elements that are displayed on the touch panel.
The Examiner was unable to find in the written specification information regarding the noted function. Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as a best understood limiting operation. Gillespie teaches in 0126 “Driver 1620 may support a software control panel to allow the user to customize the operation of the touch screen. This control panel can include controls to choose, enable, disable, and rearrange the various icons on the default iconic screen. This control panel can also include controls to choose which touch screen activation mechanism(s) to use, and which auxiliary and pop-up images to allow access to the screen.” (i.e., the ability to limit various touch mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the limiting the input operation related to the one of the plurality of specific areas is performed without changing sizes or alignment of interface elements that are displayed on the touch panel for the purpose of enhancing touch screen operations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20090183098 A1 teaches paragraph 0023 teaches the keyboard profiles 130 and 132 are accessed by the touch-screen display unit 106 to display the customized keyboard layouts. Paragraph 0025 teaches the keyboard profile 130 for the application 120 can provide a layout customized for a shooter game, and include keys strategically placed for fastest and most comfortable triggering, removal of unused keys to help reduce or eliminate accidental triggering of a wrong key, and within easy reach of the user's unique finger size & girth without having to move one's hand out of gaming position. In contrast, the keyboard profile 132 for the application 132 can provide a layout customized for a role-playing game, providing keys strategically placed or organized such as in groups or quadrants, that allow quick access to spells, inventory, weapon changes, character interactions, and the like. By allowing for customized keyboards for different applications, the user's experience with the application can be enhanced. Further, the user can tailor the keyboard layout according to how that particular user interacts with a program.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights