DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 5/1/2026.
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 Status
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending, are newly amended, and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent.
Claim 2 is newly canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The term “interactor” in context of “on a touchscreen” is herein interpreted as anything that facilitates a bidirectional exchange between a human and a digital system, e.g., a button, slider, or other such element on the touchscreen.
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 and 3-20 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 and 13 recite “the interactor is registered to associated with the opening by matching activated pixels of a registration touch event against the second shape to associate the registered interactor with the second shape”. Here, this is unclear. The claim states that the processor is matching pixels of a “registration touch event” against the second shape to associate the registered interactor with the second shape. However, the first part of the limitation describes associating the interactor with the “opening”. The connection between the “opening,” the “second shape,” and the “interactor” is disjointed and confusing. Fu phrase “registered to associated with” is grammatically incorrect. It mixes a preposition (to) with an active past tense verb (associated) instead of using the infinitive form (to associate). For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the system registers an interactor to a physical opening by mapping the active pixels of a registration touch event to a corresponding shape. Correction required.
Claim 14 recites “detecting the registration touch event activating a plurality of pixels of the touchscreen surface”, “determining whether a shape of the activated pixels of the registration touch event matches with the second shape”, and “registering the interactor associated with the second shape”. Here, this is unclear because they do not seem to add any limits to the detecting, determining, and registering steps of claim 13, and also doesn’t differentiate whether or not they refer to the same or different steps. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as unintentionally redundant limitations that introduces a lack of clarity. Correction required.
Claims 3-11 and 14-20 are also rejected as they depend on the claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8, 12-14 and 17 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) and Huang; Chao-Shuan (hereinafter Huang – US 20150015510 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 an opening, (touchscreen 31, fig. 3 and ¶ 28. The stencil, e.g., a touchscreen overlay 10 [stencil], fig. 1, includes a plurality of openings [comprising an opening] in different shapes, Abstract and ¶ 26 and fig. 1.)
wherein:
the opening has a first shape; (the openings have shapes including but not limited to rectangles, triangles, strips circles, and other reasonable and adequate openings to help facilitate blind searching for keys, see ¶ 24 and fig. 1)
the first shape is associated with a second shape, [a] second shape is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory, (a touchscreen application is taught an association between keystrokes and/or function association and the shapes, ¶¶ 24 and 40. A first shape is associated with a second shape stored in non-transitory memory because a user traces physical shapes on an overlay [first shape], which allows a processor to assign and save a matching digital command or function into memory for those shapes [second shape], ¶¶ 9, 34 and 40, and the software/program/instructions are stored in tangible medium, ¶¶ 22 and 68 )
and the stencil is attached to the touchscreen surface; (the overlay may be adhesive, ¶¶ 31-32, which can attach the touch surface, ¶ 39)
and the one or more processors operable to: (e.g., processor 812, fig. 8 and ¶ 61)
detect a touch event with a registered interactor on the touchscreen surface, […]; (when a user touches the touchscreen [detect a touch event] at the opening(s), which are shapes, e.g., representing buttons, knobs [a registered interactor ], 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. Herein, the screen areas, interactors, are interpreted as being registered at least because they are mapped/associated to the touchscreen locations and functions, ¶¶ 23-24 and 35)
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)
As reflected above, Natanzon teaches a process for mapping stencil openings to actions, ¶¶ 35 and 40. A user registers overlay shapes to the application by tracing their contours. Touching the screen inside these cutouts/openings implicitly interacts with the display pixels aligned in those zones. A person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally understand that touchscreens contain “pixels” layered with touch sensors.
Natanzon does not appear to expressly teach, but Wu teaches:
wherein the interactor is registered to associated with the opening by matching […] pixels of a registration touch event against the second shape to associate the registered interactor with the second shape (For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the system registers an interactor to a physical opening by mapping the active pixels of a registration touch event to a corresponding shape. As explained above using Natanzon, a registration includes receiving a user trace/gesture on a “pixelated” touch surface, and assigning that gesture to keystroke(s) and/or function(s), ¶¶ 35 and 40. Wu suggests this reception of the trace/touch gesture is achievable by matching customized shapes against preloaded ones, e.g., by using a shape-matching algorithm to compare a “received gesture” [first shape] against “pre-stored gestures” [second shape] 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 modify the system of Natanzon to include wherein the interactor is registered to associated with the opening by matching […] pixels of a registration touch event against the second shape to associate the registered interactor with the second 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.
Natanzon, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Huang teaches:
that the pixeled are “activated” (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 that the pixeled are “activated”, 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 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Natanzon, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the interactor registration comprises:
[…] a user [can] contact the touchscreen surface exposed through the opening and trace an outline (contours) of an inner part of the opening; (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 the registration touch event [on] the touchscreen surface; (Natanzon teaches the registration of touch event on the surface, ¶ 40)
determining whether a shape of the activated pixels of the registration touch event matches with one of the second shape; (a shape of the contour is determined and matched to preloaded shapes, as explained for claim 1. to display a picture drawn on a touch screen, Huang Abstract, when a touch input is received, appropriate touchpoint pixels are activated in a drawing region according to coordinates associated to the touch points, Huang ¶ 24)
and registering the interactor associated with the second shape. (the interactor is registered, as explained above for claim 1)
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.
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 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 first shape comprises 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 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are operably to assign a label to the registered interactor. (each shape [associated with the registered interactor] is associate with an identifier [label], ¶ 34)
Independent Claim 13:
Natanzon 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)
[…] a stencil-attached touchscreen surface of a touchscreen, (touchscreen 31, fig. 3 and ¶ 28. The stencil, e.g., a touchscreen overlay 10 [stencil], fig. 1, includes a plurality of openings [comprising an opening] in different shapes, Abstract and ¶ 26 and fig. 1. the overlay may be adhesive, ¶¶ 31-32, which can attach to the touch surface, ¶ 39)
wherein the second shape is stored in a non transitory computer-readable memory, (a touchscreen application is taught an association between keystrokes and/or function association and the shapes, ¶¶ 24 and 40. A first shape is associated with a second shape stored in non-transitory memory because a user traces physical shapes on an overlay [first shape], which allows a processor to assign and save a matching digital command or function into memory for those shapes [second shape], ¶¶ 9, 34 and 40, and the software/program/instructions are stored in tangible medium, ¶¶ 22 and 68 )
[…];
[…], register an interactor […]. (mapping stencil openings to actions, ¶¶ 35 and 40. Here, a user registers overlay shapes to the application by tracing their contours)
detecting a touch event with the registered interactor on the stencil-attached touchscreen surface, (when a user touches the touchscreen at the opening(s), e.g., representing buttons, knobs, etc., associated with an application, the application is triggered to perform a function(s) associated with the opening(s), ¶¶ 23-24, 26, and 40 and fig. 1)
[…];
and operating the touchscreen according to the touch event and the registered interactor. (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)
As reflected above, Natanzon teaches a process for mapping stencil openings to actions, ¶¶ 35 and 40. A user registers overlay shapes to the application by tracing their contours. Touching the screen inside these cutouts/openings implicitly interacts with the display pixels aligned in those zones. A person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally understand that touchscreens contain “pixels” layered with touch sensors.
However, Natanzon does not appear to expressly teach, but Wu teaches:
“determining whether a first shape of an opening of a stencil matches a second shape on” the touchscreen surface, that the interactor is registered “in determining that the first shape matches the second shape” and that the interactor is “associated with the second shape”, wherein the interactor is registered to associate with the opening by matching […] pixels of a registration touch event against the second shape to associate the registered interactor with the second 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 modify the system of Natanzon to include “determining whether a first shape of an opening of a stencil matches a second shape on” the touchscreen surface, that the interactor is registered “in determining that the first shape matches the second shape” and that the interactor is “associated with the second shape”, wherein the interactor is registered to associate with the opening by matching […] pixels of a registration touch event against the second shape to associate the registered interactor with the second 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.
Natanzon, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Huang teaches:
that the pixeled are “activated” (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 that the pixeled are “activated”, 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, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the interactor registration comprises:
[…] a user [can] contact the touchscreen surface exposed through the opening and trace an outline (contours) of an inner part of the opening; (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 the registration touch event activating a plurality of pixels of the touchscreen surface; (see mapping of claim 13. )
determining whether a shape of the activated pixels of the registration touch event matches with the second shape; (see mapping of claim 13. )
registering the interactor associated with the second shape; (see mapping of claim 13. )
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.
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Natanzon further teaches:
wherein the first shape comprises 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(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) and Huang (US 20150015510 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Johnson; Ricky J. et al. (hereinafter Johnson – US 20160328065 A1).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Huang further teaches:
wherein detecting the touch event comprises sensing the activated pixels of the touch event 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).
Natanzon, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Johnson teaches:
and determining a pattern of the 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 the 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. Huang further 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).
Natanzon, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Johnson teaches:
and determining a pattern of the touch event, the pattern of the touch event comprising 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).
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 the touch event, the pattern of the touch event comprising tapping, double-tapping, swiping, dragging, dropping toggling clockwise, or 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) and Huang (US 20150015510 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of 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, as modified, further teaches:
wherein detecting the touch event with one of the one or more interactors comprises: detecting a location and the activated pixels 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. Huang teaches, displaying 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)
Natanzon, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Lindmeier teaches:
determining whether the activated pixels of the touch event match with the second shape 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 second shape, 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 second shape (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 of the touch event match with the second shape 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 second shape, 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 second shape , 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) and Huang (US 20150015510 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, as modified, 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: 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: 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, 11, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natanzon (US 20110050587 A1) in view of Wu (US 20140123079 A1) and Huang (US 20150015510 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, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Ng teaches:
wherein the touchscreen surface comprises an a first region and a second 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 first 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, as modified, 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 second region is configured to perform interactions with a user independent from the stencil. (wherein a first display panel can function as display, 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 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)
[…].
Natanzon, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Ng teaches:
wherein the second touchscreen is configured to perform interactions with a user independent from the stencil (a device having two display panels, Abstract, ¶ 12, and fig. 2A, wherein a panel can function as a display of content, and a second display panel can function as a virtual input device, such as a virtual keyboard, ¶¶ 21 and 32 and fig. 2A. 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, as modified, 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. Furthermore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that a one panel can be overlayed by the stencil, and a second display panel can be operated without a being overlayed by the stencil [perform interactions with a user independent from the stencil], ¶¶ 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 second touchscreen 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).
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)
Natanzon, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Ng teaches:
wherein the second touchscreen is configured to perform interactions with a user independent from the stencil (a device having two display panels, Abstract, ¶ 12, and fig. 2A, wherein a panel can function as a display of content, and a second display panel can function as a virtual input device, such as a virtual keyboard, ¶¶ 21 and 32 and fig. 2A. 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, as modified, 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. Furthermore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that a one panel can be overlayed by the stencil, and a second display panel can be operated without a being overlayed by the stencil [perform interactions with a user independent from the stencil], ¶¶ 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 second touchscreen 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.
Comments/Response to Arguments
Objections to the Specification:
The objections to the Instant Specification have been overcome by amendment to the Instant Specification.
Objections to the Claims:
The objections to claims 5, 6, and 15 have been overcome by amendment.
Claim Interpretation:
The applicant request the withdrawal of claim interpretation using “ordinary and customary meaning” for the terms preloaded and controller, Remarks Pg(s) 9.
The request to interpret “preloaded” and “controller” (not including “haptic controller”) is moot because the term has been removed from the claims.
112(a)/(b) Rejections:
The previous 112(a)/(b) rejections have been overcome by amendment.
103 Rejections:
Applicant's 103 arguments, Remarks Pg(s) 10-14, have been fully considered but are unpersuasive or otherwise moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
First, in reference to claim 1, in the arguments, the applicant attacks references individually, and/or argues that the references do not teach the newly added limitations.
Second, in reference to claim 1, these arguments are moot in part because the references teach the new limitations, as mapped in the 103 rejection section above. Furthermore, the applicant also attacks references individually, when the rejection was based on a combination of references. E.g., the applicant attacked Natanzon for not teaching matching shapes during a registration process, see Remarks Pg(s) 12-13, when a matching of shapes is taught by Wu, and attacks Wu for not teaching a registration process, see Remarks Pg(s) 13, when a registration process is taught by Natanzon. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Third, the applicant relies on the arguments above to allege patentability of remaining claims, Remarks Pg(s) 14.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for reason(s) above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights