DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 4/30/2024.
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 .
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: Stencil-Based Haptic Touchscreen Controller for Registered Shapes.
Furthermore, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Instant Specification recites “The pattern of touch event may include tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, and toggling counterclockwise”, see ¶¶ 56 and 58, as published, which seems to be intended as reciting “The pattern of touch event may include tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, [[and]] or toggling counterclockwise”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 involve the terms “controller” and “preloaded shapes”. The Instant Specification does not redefine the terms, so they are herein interpreted using its "ordinary and customary meaning".
Herein, a “controller” is interpreted as a broad, functional component—whether software logic, hardware circuit, or virtual UI element—that receives, interprets, and acts upon user input (such as taps, gestures, or button presses) to update the application state or display. Consequently, Claims 11 and 20 describes the second touchscreen as comprising “a controller”. A touchscreen interface acts as “a controller” because it allows users to directly manipulate, select, and interact with on-screen content, translating finger gestures into specific digital commands. Since, the claimed second touchscreen, like the touchscreen (or “first touchscreen”), is a “touchscreen”, herein it is interpreted that it comprises “a controller”.
Herein, "preloaded shapes" is broadly interpreted as including, but not limited to, any pre-existing or pre-registered shapes’ data and behavioral parameters stored in ROM (permanent firmware), and/or shapes related data pre-fetched before needed, in order to reduce data-retrieval times.
Claim Objections
Claim 5, 6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5, 6 and 15 include one or more instances of “a pattern of touch event” or “the pattern of touch event”, wherein it seem the applicant intended “a pattern of the touch event” or “the pattern of the touch event”, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or 112(1st)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was/were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 involve the concept of registered or registering “interactors”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe the term. Although an example is provided, e.g., "each opening 131 in the stencil 103 may be registered as an interactor" (Instant Specification, ¶ 32, as filed), the Instant Specification fails to sufficiently describe the term as being a user being registered or an opening association (or something else), which fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 similarly involve the concepts of “customized” shapes. Here, the Instant Specification does sufficiently describe the term “customized”. Paragraph 32 of Instant Specification, as filed, states that shape files correspond to "customized shapes of the openings" but fails to define the structural, geometric, or technical parameters that distinguish a custom shape from a standard (or a “non-customized”) one. It merely asserts that these shapes are loaded into the system, offering no functional or physical limitations on what constitutes a "customized" shape, which fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “the conductive fabric comprises one or more fabric openings near locations of the one or more openings”. The term “near” in claims 9 and 18 is a relative term, but the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree.
Claims 10 and 19 include both an “app region” and a “controller region”. An entire touchscreen interface (which includes both the claimed app and controller regions) acts as a "controller region" because it allows users to directly manipulate, select, and interact with on-screen content, translating finger gestures into specific digital commands. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe a difference between the two regions.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the one or more processors are operably to assign an optional label to each registered interactor”. Here, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe what is meant by an “optional label”.
Claim 15 recites “a pattern of touch event, the pattern of touch event comprising tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, and toggling counterclockwise”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe how “a pattern of touch event” can comprise all of: “tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, and toggling counterclockwise”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 involve the concept of registered or registering “interactors”. However, the term is unclear. The description "each opening 131 in the stencil 103 may be registered as an interactor" (Instant Specification, ¶ 32, as filed) is not a special definition because it uses permissive language ("may") rather than a clear, definitive, and intentional statement (e.g., "interactor means...") to override the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, leaving "interactor" ambiguous and subject to multiple, distinct interpretations (such as a physical stencil part, a human user ‘interacting with the GUI’, or a software component) that fail to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) is limited to the software component associating each opening of the stencil to an action(s). Correction required.
Claims 1-20 similarly involve the concepts of “customized” shapes. However, the term is unclear. Paragraph 32 of Instant Specification, as filed, states that shape files correspond to "customized shapes of the openings" but fails to define the structural, geometric, or technical parameters that distinguish a custom shape from a standard (or a “non-customized”) one. It merely asserts that these shapes are loaded into the system, offering no functional or physical limitations on what constitutes a "customized" shape, which makes the claim scope subjective. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) are not limited to arbitrary, non-standard shapes (e.g., other than squares, circles, etc.), and instead includes user-selectable shapes. Correction required.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “the conductive fabric comprises one or more fabric openings near locations of the one or more openings”. The term “near” in claims 9 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to a conductive fabric with one or more fabric openings at location of the one or more openings of the stencil. Correction required.
Claims 10 and 19 include both an “app region” and a “controller region”. First, it is unclear whether “app” refers to an application or something else, e.g., like an applet. Furthermore, the difference between the two regions (app and controller regions) is unclear. An entire touchscreen interface (which includes both of the claimed app and controller regions) acts as a "controller region" because it allows users to directly manipulate, select, and interact with on-screen content, translating finger gestures into specific digital commands. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being that a controller region displays a traditional virtual input device, such as a virtual keyboard, and that the app region displays other non-traditional, or more specialized, input devices, e.g., specific interactive icons in a GUI. Correction required.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the one or more processors are operably to assign an optional label to each registered interactor”. Here, the phrase “optional label” creates indefiniteness regarding whether the assignment must occur for all interactors. The term “optional” can be removed to clarify that a label is assigned to each registered interactor. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) requiring a label for each interactor. Correction required.
Claim 15 recites “a pattern of touch event, the pattern of touch event comprising tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, and toggling counterclockwise”. Here, it is unclear how “a pattern of touch event” can comprise all of “tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, and toggling counterclockwise”. The pattern “might” be a combination of two of these, but it cannot be a combination of all. E.g., a pattern cannot comprise both a “tapping” and a “double-tapping”. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to a pattern being one or more of these options. Correction required.
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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 4, 8, 11-13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natanzon; Alexander et al. (hereinafter Natanzon US 20110050587 A1) in view of Wu; Lei (hereinafter Wu – US 20140123079 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Natanzon teaches:
A system for a haptic controller comprising: (e.g., system 30, fig. 3 and Abstract and ¶ 28. Herein, this system is reflective of a “haptic controller” because it describes the use of specialized, localized "tactile boundaries" on a touch interface to provide physical, kinesthetic feedback (such as texture or resistance) that simulates a tangible button or boundary, enhancing user interaction beyond the capabilities of a standard, flat touchscreen. Herein, a “controller” is interpreted as a broad, functional component—whether software logic, hardware circuit, or virtual UI element—that receives, interprets, and acts upon user input (such as taps, gestures, or button presses) to update the application state or display.)
a touchscreen comprising a touchscreen surface; (touchscreen 32, fig. 3 and ¶ 28)
a stencil comprising one or more openings having customized shapes, (touchscreen 31 [stencil], fig. 3 and ¶ 28. The stencil, e.g., a touchscreen overlay 10, fig. 1, includes a plurality of openings in different shapes, Abstract and ¶ 26 and fig. 1. Because the openings/shapes are part of a template that is customizable/selectable [one or more openings having customized shapes], see ¶¶ 35, 41 and 47)
wherein each customized shape is associated with one of the one or more [data related to keystrokes and/or function for the] shapes, (a touchscreen application is taught an association between keystrokes and/or function association and the shapes, ¶¶ 24 and 40)
and the stencil is attached to the touchscreen surface; (the overlay may be adhesive, ¶¶ 31-32, which can attach the touch surface, ¶ 39)
and one or more processors operable to: (e.g., processor 812, fig. 8 and ¶ 61)
detect a touch event with one of one or more registered interactors on the touchscreen surface, wherein each registered interaction is associated with one of the one or more […] shapes; (when a user touches the touchscreen at the opening(s), e.g., representing buttons, knobs [one or more registered interactors], etc., associated with an application, the application is triggered to perform a function(s) associated with the opening(s) [shapes], ¶¶ 23-24, 26, and 40 and fig. 1)
and operate the touchscreen according to the touch event and the one of the one or more registered interactors. (when a user touches the touchscreen at the opening(s), e.g., representing buttons, knobs [one or more registered interactors], etc., associated with an application, the application is triggered to perform a function(s) [operate] associated with the opening(s) [shapes], ¶¶ 23-24, 26, and 40 and fig. 1)
Natanzon further teaches ‘a user traces [a “gesture”], such as using a pencil or stylus, a contour of touches/punches to teach [registered] the shapes of the overlay to a touchscreen application’ and ‘a keystroke or combination of keystrokes and/or functions can be assigned to the shape(s) defined’, ¶ 40.
Natanzon does not appear to expressly teach, but Wu teaches:
that the association/functions data is “preloaded” (as explained by Natanzon, a registration includes receiving a user trace/gesture, and assigning that gesture to keystroke(s) and/or function(s), ¶ 40. Wu suggests this registration occurs by matching customized shapes against preloaded ones, e.g., by using a shape-matching algorithm to compare a "received gesture" against "pre-stored gestures" to calculate their similarity and determine if they are identical or similar, and based on this similarity, may acquire a gesture command associated to the shape/gesture, ¶¶ 78-79, according to a prestored mapping, ¶¶ 85 and 94.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Wu to include that the association/functions data is “preloaded”, as taught by Wu.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality and usability of the system, e.g., by implementing a known and effective way of associated commands with shapes, e.g., based on a prestored mapping, Wu ¶ 85 and 94, and doing so in a more user-friendly way, e.g., as delivered by the factory, Wu ¶ 55, which implies the users don’t have to spend time creating their shape correspondence rules.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. However, Natanzon further teaches:
wherein the one or more interactors are registered (‘a user traces [a “gesture”], such as using a pencil or stylus, a contour of touches/punches to teach [registered] the shapes of the overlay to a touchscreen application’ and ‘a keystroke or combination of keystrokes and/or functions can be assigned to the shape(s) defined’, ¶ 40)
Natanzon-Wu further teaches:
that the registering is by matching the customized shapes against the one or more preloaded shapes. (as explained by Natanzon, a registration includes receiving a user trace/gesture, and assigning that gesture to keystroke(s) and/or function(s), ¶ 40. Wu suggests this registration occurs by matching customized shapes against preloaded ones, e.g., by using a shape-matching algorithm to compare a "received gesture" against "pre-stored gestures" to calculate their similarity and determine if they are identical or similar, and based on this similarity, may acquire a gesture command associated to the shape/gesture, ¶¶ 78-79, according to a prestored mapping, ¶¶ 85 and 94).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Wu further teaches:
wherein the matching comprises a scale and rotation invariant matching. (the “graphic matching method is invariant to geometric transformation such as…rotation, and scaling”, ¶ 79)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches:
wherein the customized shapes comprise a bar shape, a heart shape, a square shape, a rectangular shape, a ring shape, a circle shape, or a combination thereof. (rectangles, triangles, strips, circles, and/or other appropriate shape openings, ¶¶ 24 and 70)
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches:
wherein the system further comprises a second touchscreen operably linked to the touchscreen, (the touchscreen can be a “dual touchscreen” [the system further comprises a second touchscreen operably linked to the touchscreen], ¶ 23)
the second touchscreen comprising a controller. (See ¶ 23. A touchscreen interface acts as “a controller” because it allows users to directly manipulate, select, and interact with on-screen content, translating finger gestures into specific digital commands. Since, the dual touchscreen, like the touchscreen (or “first touchscreen”), is a “touchscreen”, herein it is interpreted that it comprises “a controller”)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are operably to assign an optional label to each registered interactor. (each shape [associated with each registered interactor] is associate with an identifier [optional label], ¶ 34)
Independent Claim 13:
Natanzon further teaches:
A method for a haptic controller comprising: (e.g., system 30, fig. 3 and Abstract and ¶ 28. Herein, this system is reflective of a “haptic controller” because it describes the use of specialized, localized "tactile boundaries" on a touch interface to provide physical, kinesthetic feedback (such as texture or resistance) that simulates a tangible button or boundary, enhancing user interaction beyond the capabilities of a standard, flat touchscreen. Herein, a “controller” is interpreted as a broad, functional component—whether software logic, hardware circuit, or virtual UI element—that receives, interprets, and acts upon user input (such as taps, gestures, or button presses) to update the application state or display)
[…];
detecting a touch event with the registered interactors; (when a user touches the touchscreen at the opening(s), e.g., representing buttons, knobs [one or more registered interactors], etc., associated with an application, the application is triggered to perform a function(s) associated with the opening(s) [shapes], ¶¶ 23-24, 26, and 40 and fig. 1)
and operating according to the touch event and the registered interactors; (when a user touches the touchscreen at the opening(s), e.g., representing buttons, knobs [one or more registered interactors], etc., associated with an application, the application is triggered to perform a function(s) [operating] associated with the opening(s) [shapes], ¶¶ 23-24, 26, and 40 and fig. 1)
and wherein the stencil comprises the one or more openings having one or more customized shapes. (touchscreen 31 [stencil], fig. 3 and ¶ 28. The stencil, e.g., a touchscreen overlay 10, fig. 1, includes a plurality of openings in different shapes, Abstract and ¶ 26 and fig. 1. Because the openings/shapes are part of a template that is customizable/selectable [one or more openings having customized shapes], see ¶¶ 35, 41 and 47)
Natanzon further teaches ‘a user traces [a “gesture”], such as using a pencil or stylus, a contour of touches/punches to teach [registered] the shapes of the overlay to a touchscreen application’ and ‘a keystroke or combination of keystrokes and/or functions can be assigned to the shape(s) defined’, ¶ 40.
However, Natanzon does not appear to expressly teach, but Wu teaches:
matching a customized shape of one of one or more openings against one or more preloaded shapes on a stencil-attached touchscreen surface of a touchscreen to register an interactor associated with one of the one or more preloaded shapes that matches the customized shape (as explained by Natanzon, a registration includes receiving a user trace/gesture, and assigning that gesture to keystroke(s) and/or function(s), ¶ 40. Wu suggests this registration occurs by matching customized shapes against preloaded ones, e.g., by using a shape-matching algorithm to compare a "received gesture" against "pre-stored gestures" to calculate their similarity and determine if they are identical or similar, and based on this similarity, may acquire a gesture command associated to the shape/gesture, ¶¶ 78-79, according to a prestored mapping, ¶¶ 85 and 94.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Wu to include matching a customized shape of one of one or more openings against one or more preloaded shapes on a stencil-attached touchscreen surface of a touchscreen to register an interactor associated with one of the one or more preloaded shapes that matches the customized shape, as taught by Wu.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality and usability of the system, e.g., by implementing a known and effective way of associated commands with shapes, e.g., based on a prestored mapping, Wu ¶ 85 and 94, and doing so in a more user-friendly way, e.g., as delivered by the factory, Wu ¶ 55, which implies the users don’t have to spend time creating their shape correspondence rules.
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches:
wherein the customized shapes comprise a bar shape, a heart shape, a square shape, a rectangular shape, a ring shape, a circle shape, or a combination thereof. (rectangles, triangles, strips, circles, and/or other appropriate shape openings, ¶¶ 24 and 70)
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises linking the touchscreen to a second touchscreen (the touchscreen can be a “dual touchscreen” [a second touchscreen], ¶ 23, a system bus links [linking the touchscreen to a second touchscreen] components, ¶ 75)
comprising a controller. (See ¶ 23. A touchscreen interface acts as “a controller” because it allows users to directly manipulate, select, and interact with on-screen content, translating finger gestures into specific digital commands. Since, the dual touchscreen, like the touchscreen (or “first touchscreen”), is a “touchscreen”, herein it is interpreted that it comprises “a controller”)
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natanzon (US 20110050587 A1) in view of Wu (US 20140123079 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Huang; Chao-Shuan (hereinafter Huang – US 20150015510 A1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Natanzon-Wu further teaches:
wherein the interactor registration comprises:
[…] a user [can] contact the touchscreen surface exposed through one of the one or more openings and trace an outline (contours) of an inner part of the one of the one or more openings; (a user traces, such as using a pencil or stylus, a contour of touches/punches to teach the shapes of the overlay to a touchscreen application, Wu ¶ 40. So, clearly a user knows what to do in order to register the shapes. The user is instructed by prompts to place the “overlay” on the touchscreen, Wu ¶ 33, and to change the overlay, if needed, Natanzon ¶ 45.)
detecting a registration touch event [on] the touchscreen surface; (Natanzon teaches the registration of touch event on the surface, ¶ 40)
determining whether a shape of the [touch gesture] matches with one of the one or more preloaded shapes; (a shape of the contour is determined and matched to preloaded shapes, as explained for claim 2, Natanzon-Wu)
and registering an interactor associated with a matched preloaded shape. (the interactor is registered, as explained by Natanzon for claim 1, and the same is matched to the preloaded shapes, see Natanzon-Wu for claim 2)
Natanzon further suggests:
“instructing” the user “to” perform the tracing (a user traces, such as using a pencil or stylus, a contour of touches/punches to teach the shapes of the overlay to a touchscreen application, ¶ 40. So, clearly a user knows to perform a tracing to register the shapes. The user is instructed by prompts to place the “overlay” on the touchscreen, ¶ 33, and to change the overlay, if needed, ¶ 45.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include “instructing” the user “to” perform the tracing, as taught by Natanzon.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to inform a user of any and all needed steps, in similar way that the user informed of other steps, Natanzon ¶¶ 33, 40 and 45.
Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Huang teaches:
that a touch event in one “that activates a plurality of pixels on” the touchscreen surface and that the shape is of the “activated pixels” (to display a picture drawn on a touch screen, Abstract, when a touch input is received, appropriate touchpoint pixels are activated in a drawing region according to coordinates associated to the touch points, ¶ 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include that a touch event in one “that activates a plurality of pixels on” the touchscreen surface and that the shape is of the “activated pixels, as taught by Huang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by provided visual feedback concerning the picture/gesture/shape that is drawn/traced on the screen, Huang Abstract and ¶ 24, and Natanzon ¶ 40.
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Natanzon-Wu further teaches:
wherein the interactor registration comprises:
[…] a user [can] contact the touchscreen surface exposed through one of the one or more openings and trace an outline (contours) of an inner part of the one of the one or more openings; (a user traces, such as using a pencil or stylus, a contour of touches/punches to teach the shapes of the overlay to a touchscreen application, Wu ¶ 40. So, a user knows what to do to register the shapes. The user is instructed by prompts to place the “overlay” on the touchscreen, Wu ¶ 33, and to change the overlay, if needed, Natanzon ¶ 45)
detecting a registration touch event [on] the touchscreen surface; (Natanzon teaches the registration of touch event on the surface, ¶ 40)
determining whether a shape of the [touch gesture] matches with the one of the one or more preloaded shapes; (a shape of the contour is determined and matched to preloaded shapes, as explained for claim 2, Natanzon-Wu)
registering the interactor associated with a matched preloaded shape; (the interactor is registered, as explained by Natanzon for claim 1, and the same is matched to the preloaded shapes, see Natanzon-Wu for claim 2)
and wherein the matching comprises a scale and rotation invariant matching. (the “graphic matching method is invariant to geometric transformation such as…rotation, and scaling”, Wu ¶ 79)
Natanzon further suggests:
“instructing” the user “to” perform the tracing (a user traces, such as using a pencil or stylus, a contour of touches/punches to teach the shapes of the overlay to a touchscreen application, ¶ 40. So, a user knows to performing the tracing to register the shapes. The user is instructed by prompts to place the “overlay” on the touchscreen, ¶ 33, and to change the overlay, if needed, ¶ 45.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include “instructing” the user “to” perform the tracing, as taught by Natanzon.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to inform a user of any and all needed steps, in similar way that the user informed of other steps, Natanzon ¶¶ 33, 40 and 45.
Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Huang teaches:
that a touch event in one “activating a plurality of pixels of” the touchscreen surface and that the shape is of the “activated pixels” (to display a picture drawn on a touch screen, Abstract, when a touch input is received, appropriate touchpoint pixels are activated in a drawing region according to coordinates associated to the touch points, ¶ 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include that a touch event in one “activating a plurality of pixels of” the touchscreen surface and that the shape is of the “activated pixels”, as taught by Huang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by provided visual feedback concerning the picture/gesture/shape that is drawn/traced on the screen, Huang Abstract and ¶ 24, and Natanzon ¶ 40.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natanzon (US 20110050587 A1) in view of Wu (US 20140123079 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Huang (US 20150015510 A1) and Johnson; Ricky J. et al. (hereinafter Johnson – US 20160328065 A1).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Huang teaches:
wherein detecting the touch event comprises sensing activated pixels on the touchscreen surface (to display a picture drawn on a touch screen, Abstract, when a touch input is received, appropriate touchpoint pixels are activated in a drawing region according to coordinates associated to the touch points, ¶ 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include wherein detecting the touch event comprises sensing activated pixels on the touchscreen surface, as taught by Huang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by provided visual feedback concerning the picture/gesture/shape that is drawn/traced on the screen, Huang Abstract and ¶ 24, and Natanzon ¶ 40.
Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Johnson teaches:
and determining a pattern of touch event (a touch input can be determined based on a type of input, e.g., pinch, rotate, zoom, pan, drag, etc., to help prevent inadvertent selections, ¶¶ 72 and 77).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include and determining a pattern of touch event, as taught by Johnson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the accuracy of the system by helping to prevent inadvertent selections, Johnson ¶ 72.
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Johnson further teaches:
wherein the pattern of touch event is tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, or toggling counterclockwise (a touch input can be determined based on a type of input, e.g., pinch, rotate, zoom, pan, drag, etc., to help prevent inadvertent selections, ¶¶ 72 and 77).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Huang teaches:
wherein detecting the touch event comprises: sensing activated pixels on the touchscreen surface (to display a picture drawn on a touch screen, Abstract, when a touch input is received, appropriate touchpoint pixels are activated in a drawing region according to coordinates associated to the touch points, ¶ 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include wherein detecting the touch event comprises: sensing activated pixels on the touchscreen surface (to, as taught by Huang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by provided visual feedback concerning the picture/gesture/shape that is drawn/traced on the screen, Huang Abstract and ¶ 24, and Natanzon ¶ 40.
Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Johnson teaches:
and determining a pattern of touch event, the pattern of touch event comprising tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, and toggling counterclockwise. (a touch input can be determined based on a type of input, e.g., pinch, rotate, zoom, pan, drag, etc., to help prevent inadvertent selections, ¶¶ 72 and 77).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include and determining a pattern of touch event, the pattern of touch event comprising tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, and toggling counterclockwise, as taught by Johnson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the accuracy of the system by helping to prevent inadvertent selections, Johnson ¶ 72.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natanzon (US 20110050587 A1) in view of Wu (US 20140123079 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Huang; Chao-Shuan (hereinafter Huang – US 20150015510 A1) and Lindmeier; William D. et al. (hereinafter Lindmeier – US 20220084279 A1).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wu suggests this registration occurs by matching customized shapes against preloaded ones, e.g., by using a shape-matching algorithm to compare a "received gesture" against "pre-stored gestures" to calculate their similarity and determine if they are identical or similar, and based on this similarity, may acquire a gesture command associated to the shape/gesture, ¶¶ 78-79, according to a prestored mapping, ¶¶ 85 and 94.
Natanzon-Wu further teaches:
wherein detecting the touch event with one of the one or more interactors comprises: detecting a location […] of the touch event; (when a user touches the touchscreen at a location, e.g., representing buttons, knobs, etc., associated with an application, the application is triggered to perform a function(s) associated with the opening(s) [shapes], Natanzon ¶¶ 23-24, 26, and 40 and fig. 1)
Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Huang teaches:
that the detecting is also of “activated pixels” (to display a picture drawn on a touch screen, Abstract, when a touch input is received, appropriate touchpoint pixels are activated in a drawing region according to coordinates associated to the touch points, ¶ 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include that the detecting is also of “activated pixels”, as taught by Huang.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by provided visual feedback concerning the gesture/shape that is drawn/traced on the screen, Huang Abstract and ¶ 24, and Natanzon ¶ 40.
Natanzon-Wu-Huang does not appear to expressly teach, but Lindmeier teaches:
determining whether the activated pixels match with one of the one or more preloaded shapes associated with a corresponding interactor that has a registered location different than the location of the touch event; and in determining that the activated pixels match with the one of the one or more preloaded shapes, assigning a location of the corresponding interactor relative to the location of the touch event and adjusting a size of the corresponding interactor relative to the one of the one or more preloaded shapes (An object is resizable using a pinch operation, that allow, ¶ 317. By defining the center of manipulation based on a hand-defined reference point (e.g., a pinch point) rather than the object's center, the system ensures that as the user's hands move or change their relative grip position (translation or rotation), the object's position and size are dynamically updated in real-time, allowing for intuitive, direct-manipulation scaling, rotation, or translation. Here, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the pixels can be activated, as in Huang, for visual feedback, and that such activation would correspond, or match, the shapes associated with an interactor that has a location different than the location of the touch event, e.g., the center point of the original sized object is different from the location of a finishing input portion of the pinch operation. The size is adjusted relative to the pinch points and original size of the object, e.g., expanding or shrinking, ¶¶ 241 or 307).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include determining whether the activated pixels match with one of the one or more preloaded shapes associated with a corresponding interactor that has a registered location different than the location of the touch event; and in determining that the activated pixels match with the one of the one or more preloaded shapes, assigning a location of the corresponding interactor relative to the location of the touch event and adjusting a size of the corresponding interactor relative to the one of the one or more preloaded shapes, as taught by Lindmeier.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and functionalities of the system by allowing any number of object manipulation known in the art, e.g., resizing and movement, Lindmeier ¶ 33, that allows for precision control of the manipulation, Lindmeier ¶ 317.
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim(s) 16 is/are directed to a method for accomplishing the functions of the system in claim 7, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natanzon (US 20110050587 A1) in view of Wu (US 20140123079 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Rosenberg; Ilya D. et al. (hereinafter Rosenberg – US 9740340 B1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches that touchscreen areas are exposed and interactable through the openings of the stencil/overlay, Abstract.
Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Rosenberg teaches:
wherein the system further comprises a conductive fabric arranged between the stencil and the touchscreen, (A conductive mesh [fabric] is emplaced on a transparent or translucent substrate and interleaved with a non-conductive mesh to form a visually consistent array [802, 804]. This arrangement functions as a transparent metal mesh conductor positioned between a user and a touchscreen, enabling touch sensitivity and electromagnetic shielding, col 10:6-13 and fig. 8. In applying this to Natanzon, because the stencil and its openings are on top of the touchscreen, the fabric would necessarily between the stencil and the touchscreen.)
wherein: the conductive fabric comprises one or more fabric openings near locations of the one or more openings; (breaks in the conductive elements of the mesh, Abstract. In the context of the capacitive mesh description, the term "breaks" is interpreted as "openings" or discontinuities within the conductive path. These selective breaks in the columns increase resistance along one axis, causing current to flow more easily horizontally than vertically. Furthermore, because the mesh is made of arrangement of wire elements, e.g., a rectangular or hexagonal arrangement, col 8:22-42 and figs. 1 and 3-6, there are openings or gaps between the wires/elements of the mesh. In applying this to Natanzon, because the stencil and its openings are on top of the touchscreen, the fabric would necessarily between the stencil and the touchscreen. In applying this to Natanzon, these mesh openings, e.g., the breaks/non-conductive regions are necessarily exposed through to the openings of stencil so that it can perform the functions of minimizing shearing stresses resulting from user touches, col 5:5-12)
at least partial conductive fabric is exposed through the one or more openings; (the fabric/mesh has conductive portions that detect a touch, Rosenberg Claim 13. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the conductive elements are necessarily also exposed in order to detect the touches through the stencil, see Natanzon’s stencil, and breaks in the conductive elements of the mesh, Rosenberg’s Abstract. In the context of the capacitive mesh description, the term "breaks" is interpreted as "openings" or discontinuities within the conductive path. These selective breaks in the columns increase resistance along one axis, causing current to flow more easily horizontally than vertically. Furthermore, because the mesh is made of arrangement of wire elements, e.g., a rectangular or hexagonal arrangement, col 8:22-42 and figs. 1 and 3-6, there are openings or gaps between the wires/elements of the mesh. In applying this to Natanzon, because the stencil and its openings are on top of the touchscreen, the fabric would necessarily between the stencil and the touchscreen. In applying this to Natanzon, these mesh openings, e.g., the breaks/non-conductive regions are necessarily exposed through to the openings of stencil so that it can perform the functions of minimizing shearing stresses resulting from user touches, col 5:5-12)
at least partial touchscreen surface is exposed through the one or more fabric openings and the one or more openings; (the touchscreen surface is necessarily exposed through the fabric openings, in order to be able to display image via transmission of light through the fabric, col 5:26-39)
and the conductive fabric is configured to detect the touch event. (the fabric/mesh is part of a touch force sensing sensor, Rosenberg Claim 13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include wherein the system further comprises a conductive fabric arranged between the stencil and the touchscreen, wherein: the conductive fabric comprises one or more fabric openings near locations of the one or more openings; at least partial conductive fabric is exposed through the one or more openings; at least partial touchscreen surface is exposed through the one or more fabric openings and the one or more openings; and the conductive fabric is configured to detect the touch event, as taught by Rosenberg.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to produce a touch sensor feature for a display in a known and effective and visibly consistent fashion, Rosenberg Abstract and Rosenberg Claim 13.
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim(s) 18 is/are directed to a method for accomplishing the functions of the system in claim 9, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natanzon (US 20110050587 A1) in view of Wu (US 20140123079 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Ng; Kar Mun et al. (hereinafter Ng – US 20140380227 A1).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches that the touchscreen can be a “dual touchscreen”, ¶ 23).
Natanzon-Wu does not appear to expressly teach, but Ng teaches:
wherein the touchscreen surface comprises an app region and a controller region, (a device having two display panels, Abstract, ¶ 12, and fig. 2A, wherein a first display panel can function as a display of content [app region], and a second display panel can function as a virtual input device, such as a virtual keyboard, ¶¶ 21 and 32 and fig. 2A)
wherein the stencil is operably attached to the app region to generate interactors, (wherein both display panels are touch screens, ¶ 20, and can receive inputs, as in conventional tablet devices, ¶¶ 3 and 20. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implementing Ng to Natanzon-Wu, one or more stencil(s) can be attached to one or both of the two touchscreens in Natanzon to allow guided interactions using at least one of the two dual touchscreens)
and the controller region is configured to perform interactions with a user independent from the stencil. (wherein a first display panel can function as a display [app region], and a second display panel can function as a virtual input device, such as a virtual keyboard [perform interactions with a user independent], ¶¶ 21 and 32 and fig. 2A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Natanzon to include wherein the touchscreen surface comprises an app region and a controller region, wherein the stencil is operably attached to the app region to generate interactors, and the controller region is configured to perform interactions with a user independent from the stencil, as taught by Ng.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the dual touchscreen of Natanzon ¶ 23, in a known fashion and flexible way, e.g., as in a laptop, having a both an input and display region, Ng Abstract and Ng ¶¶ 12 and 39.
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim(s) 19 is/are directed to a method for accomplishing the functions of the system in claim 10, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Mosek; Amir et al. US 20070276990 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing that the association/functions data is “preloaded” (preloading data to improve data-retrieval times from a non-volatile storage device, Abstract. Herein, "preloaded shapes" is broadly interpreted as including, but not limited to, any shapes related data pre-fetched before needed, in order to reduce data-retrieval times).
Arning; Andreas et al. US 10237736 B2, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a method and system including a touchscreen and stencil positions over the touchscreen for guiding interactions with the touchscreen, Abstract and figs. 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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 Vu can be reached at (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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171